At the cellular level it’s a numbers game. The more enemy combatants, the sicker you will be. The more exposure to the virus, the more viruses you’ll have in your body, the more intense the symptoms.
Hospitals don’t have great access to fresh flowing outside air. So as they fill up with infected people the air just becomes a cesspool of virus.
It’s a good recipe for making a lot of estimation errors. Worse, it will leave you feeling more confident than you should be. Then, when you least expect it, it’ll blow up in your face.
Shameless plug, I made a short podcast episode about this, from a systems perspective. It looks at what it takes to clean your teeth...and how systems have a tendency to spiral out this way. It’s a feature of problem solving systems: they generate new/different problems that need to be solved, and therefore propagate the system into something like global collaboration.
Basically, don't forget the human in human computer interaction/UI/UX. It's very easy to come out of the academic perspective on UI/UX design designing exclusively to efficiency formulas and words in a glossary. Keep the user, the human, and their context in mind.
Just because someone is proclaimed "expert" doesn't mean they are good at what they do. This is especially true for the softer fields that Gladwell writes in.
At the end of the day it's up to you to determine if what you are reading is accurate. And if you don't have the tools, resources, or time to do so, you trust in experts at your own risk.
Think about it this way: Suppose my theory is that a fair coin is not actually fair but always lands on heads.
If I flip a coin one million times and only publish the ~500,000 results that show coin toss coming up as "heads," I could lead people to believe that a fair coin will always land on heads.
That's how misleading this bias can be.
But anyone can toss a fair coin, so I'd be found out pretty quick. But with more complicated and murky stuff like psychology this can be a huge problem, especially if people begin using this shaky work as foundation for things like: public policy, how to live their lives, how to do work, etc.
After all they can't just toss a coin to check my work on the more complicated stuff.
This area is not exactly renowned for being a hard, mechanically measurable science, so you will get many different answers as to whether this is a problem at all or not.
The wisest suggestion I've gotten with regard to this is to not fall prey to instantaneous picture. It may even be impossible to have equality in a single slice of time. Rather than looking for single point inequality, look for how the population is moving through the income inequality over time.
Basically, are the same people always in the bottom, middle, and top? If so, that's probably a problem. What's the time any given person spends in the top? Bottom? Middle?
As long as you have continuous movement throughout and no one is stuck, you can at least know that there is some semblance of equality in opportunity even if not outcomes.
Eli Schiff, whilst pointing out potentially valid concerns about minimalist designs, is also himself with his articles a symptom of a much larger Soviet-style centralist attitude that seems to pervade the modern design community.
Right now, the Soviet Design System (SDS) has decreed that we must all have minimalist everything. Eventually folks like Eli will get us back to something with more flair and embellishment. And then that will be the correct way, and everyone must do that.
But the question is, when will we start designing for context and people rather than some arbitrary, centrally decided (by the fewest people) paradigm of correct design?
How do I not lose money? - Don’t gamble.
How do I not not make money? - Take more risks.
A true inversion with a negative works better than the not-not structure, and it is easier to wrap your head around.