3 ms·
This article is weird journalism. It presents decent counter arguments to the problem, which is nice but also leaves the average skeptical reader confused about
by merrywhether 7y ago
This article is weird journalism. It presents decent counter arguments to the problem, which is nice but also leaves the average skeptical reader confused about how much waste is actually occurring on these floors. Surely _some_ mechanical space is needed, and the wind-flow anti-sway idea doesn’t seem crazy, but it’s really hard to draw a real conclusion. The fire ladder height problem in another comment seems valid, but surely most skyscrapers just aren’t ladder accessible.
But my biggest gripe (at least on mobile, maybe it’s different on desktop?) is why aren’t there pictures off the so-called wasteful spaces? Putting aside the argument that more space is needed for future batteries, let us see an example of what this actually looks like. That would certainly go a long way toward clarifying the wastefulness. I know what the outside of buildings look like, but those are the only pictures I see. At least get the outside of the problematic barbell building, or diagrams, or something!