16 ms·
The article has a taste of criticism but offers no points of criticism. Sort of a passive-aggressive play on words, which is ok just for a read, but not somethi
by deepGem 9y ago
The article has a taste of criticism but offers no points of criticism. Sort of a passive-aggressive play on words, which is ok just for a read, but not something that I expect from New Yorker.
Comparing Hyperloop to Concorde and it's eventual demise does seem valid at a cursory level. What's key to understand is that Concorde's failure can mostly be attributed to a combination of design, safety and maintenance factors (sonic boom being the foremost). In addition, what plagued the Concorde was the upkeep and maintenance of the aircrafts, and of course the spiraling fuel costs. Are there such equivalents in the Hyperloop world. If so, can they be resolved.
- mirimir 9y agoYes, that's a classic style for negative reviews. The reviewer implies all sorts of bad, but makes no disputable arguments. And yes, that's not what you'd expect from NY Times (except for some book and theater reviews). But this is the New Yorker, and pretty typical for them.
- deepGem 9y agoah, thanks for pointing out. I had the Times and this article in consecutive tabs and mistook this for the times. Classic context switching issues.