←back to thread

171 points _sbl_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.419s | source
Show context
oc1 ◴[] No.44522688[source]
<< According to official records, the design for the bridge shifted multiple times over the past seven years, largely due to conflicts between the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Railways. The two agencies couldn’t agree on how to share land, and in trying to work around both railway property and the new Metro line, they ended up producing a final layout with an abrupt 90-degree angle.

I love that mindset. Europeans would have simply refused and 100 years later it would have probably been build after all legal has been cleared. Indians instead never say no. That's how you build software, so why not bridges.

replies(14): >>44522771 #>>44522797 #>>44522901 #>>44523126 #>>44523197 #>>44523198 #>>44523260 #>>44523451 #>>44523656 #>>44523670 #>>44523959 #>>44527192 #>>44527686 #>>44529344 #
anal_reactor ◴[] No.44523451[source]
The demand for yes-men stays huge. A manager comes, he wants yes-men. Things fail. Someone gets blamed and removed, maybe the manager himself. The circus continues. I wonder why capitalism doesn't remove this obvious inefficiency, but rather seems to promote it.
replies(2): >>44523659 #>>44528680 #
1. adrianN ◴[] No.44528680[source]
I wouldn’t be surprised if having bridges with 90 degrees angles is often better than having no bridges.