3 ms·
Nice font. But looks good so far. EDIT: There's a bit of minimally technical details, but this is neither highly polished (public-perception-focused) nor highl
by zeckalpha 13y ago
Nice font. But looks good so far.
EDIT: There's a bit of minimally technical details, but this is neither highly polished (public-perception-focused) nor highly technical (engineer-focused). Is it a good balance or would one of the extremes have been better?
- keiferski 13y agoIt says right at the beginning that the first section is an overview while the second section is more technical...
- zeckalpha 13y agoSo? It needed a section with more polish than the first section for not HN, and a more detailed technical section.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- qrohlf 13y agoBoth would have been ideal - Ideally the webpage would have been a public-perception-focused with simple explanations (syringes with compressors!) and the concept sketches front-and-center, with a link for a more technically oriented whitepaper. That would have taken a lot more time though - the linked pdf is still impressive.
- tfgg 13y agoI think the occasional mention of safety on high-speed rail is a bit unfair, considering that good systems like the Japanese Shinkansen have never had a fatal accident: "Risk of derailment is also not to be taken lightly, as demonstrated by several recent fatal train accidents."
- newbie12 13y agoThere were two fatal high speed accidents just this summer in Europe-- the Spanish one killed 80 people.