Not applicable to the current situation. For one thing, EY emphasized that this was not for now when we need maximum efficiency to survive (so that puts off applying it for the foreseeable portion of the future), and for another, it was as marketing to the people who wouldn’t be interested otherwise.
Sure it’s relevant: it’s a demonstration that just opening the curtain is not always the optimal solution. There’s one reason why not; why couldn’t there be others?
I don’t know what the reasons are here for not opening the curtain, since I’m not the one who’s deciding whether to. But I’ve had reasons not to before—and some of the possibilities suggest that I shouldn’t be trying to convince anyone to accept the style, so I won’t say more than this here.
♪ ♬ ヾ(´︶`♡)ﾉ ♬ ♪〜(￣▽￣〜)•ᴥ• (▰˘◡˘▰) ∩(︶▽︶)∩(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
Not applicable to the current situation. For one thing, EY emphasized that this was not for now when we need maximum efficiency to survive (so that puts off applying it for the foreseeable portion of the future), and for another, it was as marketing to the people who wouldn’t be interested otherwise.
And on top of that, I don’t even agree with it.
Sure it’s relevant: it’s a demonstration that just opening the curtain is not always the optimal solution. There’s one reason why not; why couldn’t there be others?
I don’t know what the reasons are here for not opening the curtain, since I’m not the one who’s deciding whether to. But I’ve had reasons not to before—and some of the possibilities suggest that I shouldn’t be trying to convince anyone to accept the style, so I won’t say more than this here.