. | ex 
So if the image was infrastructure as code and those redundant signs were documentation, here's what I'd ask on a code review:
Show this thread
So, we all know this image is funny. As a infrastructure joke this might work too but documenting infra as code is nothing like this. It's about answering the non obvious whys implicit in the image.https://twitter.com/bytefeeder/status/1012223028346937345 …
-
-
-
Why are we documenting what's already explicit? Let's remove the cruft. Then I'd start asking the (arguably more) important questions:
Show this thread -
Why place branding when we could have another button (if needed!)? I can think of a hang up button. Is this maybe due to cost or the unit heating?
Show this thread -
On the topic of a hang up button, why do we have a button that seems like a pick up the call button but I guess also is the hangup button? Is that actually true or will people on the other side need to hangup first?
Show this thread -
Why two buttons for volume when a slide may be more intuitive? Why such a big mute button? Should it be made smaller so that people don't press it accidentally?
Show this thread -
And finally, the documentation for that "infrastructure as code" should be all the answers written in a way that clarify all the design decisions for that infrastructure.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.