Transport for London (TfL) has recently announced it is offering advertisers the opportunity to sponsor the Waterloo & City line through a comprehensive takeover "from moquette seat fabric, signage, to maps and experiential spaces."
While this isn't TfL's first station takeover campaign, previous examples include Samsung's "FOld Street" and the infamous "Burberry Street", this latest offering goes beyond those efforts by including the trains themselves. Understandably, people are quite nervous and opinionated about this development.
My feeling is that I'm actually fine with this approach. It's understandable why TfL is pursuing these campaigns, with minimal government subsidies (unusual for a public metro system) and a financial black hole that needs filling, it's entirely rational for them to explore such opportunities. At the same time, I also understand why people may dislike this approach. Generally speaking, people don't "like" seeing advertisements, especially not in public services they already pay for (see the BBC). Moreover, some of TfL's previous efforts weren't well received.
The most negatively received was probably "Burberry Street," when the fashion brand took over the Elizabeth line station at Bond Street, replacing the station name on virtually all signage. This led to considerable confusion among passengers. In this instance, I'd agree that TfL crossed a line they shouldn't have, where the advertisement impacted passenger navigation, arguably one of the primary functions of a transport service.
When it comes to the Waterloo & City line specifically, I think this is actually one of the more suitable locations for such a comprehensive advertising takeover. The primary reason is that the line is short, with only two stations, meaning there's minimal chance for passengers to get lost or confused, as happened with "Burberry Street", they don't need to track which station to exit at. Furthermore, being primarily a commuter route that's not particularly well-used by tourists means that people using it typically know where they're going anyway.
The fact that this line is self-contained also means there's potential for the advertising campaign to become more of an experience. I'd liken it to a ride at a theme park, where people "enter" the experience and it remains coherent before they "exit", opening up opportunities for truly immersive advertising. While this could offer exciting creative possibilities, a key challenge will be ensuring it doesn't become overly annoying for people riding it twice daily for their commute.
All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic and even slightly excited about what might come of this offer from TfL. As long as they've learned from past mistakes and don't make system navigation confusing for passengers, I don't see a problem with them trying to generate extra income that goes back into running the services. This could be a vital step in helping TfL address its financial challenges without relying solely on taxpayer money or fare increases.
At WWDC 2025, Apple unveiled Liquid Glass, their latest design system set to transform all of their operating systems. The response has been predictably polarizing, those who love it are passionate advocates, while critics are equally vocal in their disapproval. After watching the announcement and following early developer feedback, here are my initial thoughts on what could be Apple's most controversial design decision in years.
When I first saw Liquid Glass during the keynote, something immediately caught my attention. Even in Apple's own carefully crafted demo video, there were clear signs that legibility and usability would suffer. Text appeared to blend into backgrounds, interface elements seemed to float without clear boundaries, and the overall effect, while undeniably beautiful, raised serious questions about practical day-to-day use.
My initial reaction was that Apple would surely tone this down before release. The Verge's Nilay Patel shared this sentiment, and for good reason: it's hard to imagine Apple consciously shipping a design that makes their interfaces demonstrably harder to use. Users of the early developer betas are already reporting that UI elements like tab bars and notifications become nearly impossible to read against certain backgrounds and wallpapers.
This is particularly concerning when you consider that most users don't obsess over design changes the way tech enthusiasts do. Coupled with people's natural resistance to change, shipping Liquid Glass in its current form seems like a recipe for user frustration.
In the introduction video, Alan Dye, Apple's VP of Human Interface, explains that advances in hardware and graphics technology have enabled this next chapter in software design. There's no doubt that Apple Silicon has the computational power to render these complex visual effects, the question is whether it should.
Early reports from developer beta users indicate battery drain issues. While not all of these can be directly attributed to Liquid Glass, they raise an important question: if rendering these glass effects requires significant processing power and impacts battery life, do the aesthetic benefits justify the trade-off? The most beautiful interface in the world becomes meaningless if it makes your device sluggish or drains your battery by lunch.
Frankly, even if the hardware can render these graphical effects with acceptable power consumption, I remain skeptical about whether the trade-off is worthwhile. Wouldn't it be better to forgo these effects in favor of improved performance and battery life?
Apple has historically been a trendsetter in design, with their design systems and guidelines becoming industry standards. But I’m not sure if Liquid Glass is going to achieve the same effect. When iOS 7 introduced flat design in 2013, it was riding an existing wave, designers and users were already moving away from skeuomorphism toward cleaner, flatter interfaces. The timing was right, and the industry followed suit.
Today's design landscape is more complex. While there's definitely fatigue with pure flat design, I'm not convinced there's a widespread appetite for interfaces that mimic physical materials like glass. Apple’s main competitor, Google, has seemingly gone in an opposite direction with Material 3 Expressive, betting on essentially an enhanced flat design, adding personality through colour, typography, and shapes rather than the “material” or texture of the UI elements (somewhat ironically).
This divergence could lead to an interesting fork in the road. Will Liquid Glass inspire widespread adoption, or will it become an Apple-only signature look? Could we see a hybrid approach emerge, or will the industry stick with evolved flat design?
The success of Liquid Glass will ultimately depend on Apple's ability to resolve the fundamental tension between visual appeal and usability. If they can maintain the aesthetic impact while ensuring interfaces remain readable and accessible, they might have another design revolution on their hands.
The next few months will be telling. As Apple refines the design and moves toward public release, we'll see whether Liquid Glass represents the future of interface design or an ambitious experiment that needed more time in the lab.
With side hustles on my mind lately, I’ve been reading some business books, and one that is consistently recommended by business gurus was MJ DeMarco’s “The Millionaire Fastlane”. After a week listening to the audiobook, here are some of my thoughts.
Overall, this is a solid book that explains why achieving financial freedom through a traditional 9-5 job (unless it’s ridiculously high-paying) and index fund investing isn’t realistic for most people. The main issue is time: these strategies require decades of investment, and by the time you reach your goal, you may not have the health to enjoy the money or be around to spend it with loved ones. The book argues that starting your own business is the only real “fastlane” to financial freedom. This message has definitely strengthened my resolve to begin this journey and start a side business.
I won’t dive into the book’s details, plenty of YouTubers have already summarized it, but I do want to address something that bothered me about this book and others in this genre: the tone feels condescending. The author seems unwilling to understand or entertain the idea that people might have valid reasons for not pursuing the “fastlane” to wealth. Perhaps some of this comes from the audiobook narrator, but throughout many chapters, the author discusses the fastlane as if people avoid it simply because they make excuses or lack education about getting rich.
While this is certainly true for some people, there are legitimate reasons why others might not be able to pursue the fastlane, even if they want to. Personal circumstances can be major barriers. Sure, someone working multiple jobs to pay rent might squeeze in time for a side hustle, but I feel it’s a lot harder than the author makes it sound, physically or mentally. I don’t think he fully appreciates this reality.
In fact, I’d argue that those barely surviving on multiple jobs face a uniquely challenging barrier, perhaps even more so than those who’ve hit rock bottom. (I’d also argue that more people are in the former group.) The “rock bottom” group has to make something work and has the time and energy to do so. For them, the downside of not trying is infinite, so any potential upside makes the effort worthwhile. But for people just surviving off their jobs, the downside isn’t infinite, working multiple low-paying jobs isn’t ideal, but they’re making ends meet. The potential downside of pouring time and energy into starting a business becomes tangible and risky.
This is what I feel the author doesn’t fully appreciate, and many business-focused people share the same blind spot. They dismiss these concerns as excuses or lack of willpower rather than recognizing legitimate constraints. The condescending tone risks alienating readers instead of effectively conveying the message.
Another example is the topic of luck. While it’s true that people often make excuses about being unsuccessful due to bad luck or dismiss others’ success as pure luck, I think successful people often downplay how much luck contributed to their achievements. Sure, luck might not be the majority factor, and you do need to position yourself for luck to strike, but the emphasis from successful people is always on “getting to the right place” while glossing over the part where luck actually strikes. They make it sound like being in the right place enough times means luck will eventually strike, but I don’t think that’s quite true.
I’d frame it differently: you have to position yourself where luck can strike, that’s the part you can control, but luck still needs to happen. Successful people were fortunate enough to have luck strike when they were ready for it.
All in all, I’d still recommend this book to people seeking financial freedom, as it shows there’s a path beyond working 30-40 years in a corporate job. But as with any advice, take only the parts that make sense and apply to your situation. Take the rest with a grain of salt.
I recently watched a video by Ali Abdaal where he reflected on the failure of his mechanical keyboard product. (The video is over a year old, I've only just stumbled upon it.) While it was certainly interesting to see someone openly discuss a real-world failure, I couldn't shake the feeling that he overlooked a crucial reason why people reacted negatively to his product.
In the video, Ali discusses the mechanical keyboard he launched, aiming it at his audience who are keen on productivity, but not necessarily seasoned mechanical keyboard enthusiasts. He then went into a review of his keyboard by another YouTuber, Hipyo, a mechanical keyboard enthusiast. Hipyo, despite being satisfied with the keyboard's build quality, felt that similar products were available at a better price. His strong feelings on the matter led him to say “He’s trying to appeal to an audience that knows nothing about keyboards, but with a sense of authority of a productivity expert […] because of his authority, he’s trying to get them to not do the research. And that to me just feels a little bit scummy.”
Ali's reaction to this comment clearly showed his disagreement with being labeled "scummy." He argued that he never actively discouraged research, he simply didn't mention competing products. He drew parallels to standard product marketing, noting that companies typically avoid highlighting competitors because it can be detrimental to their sales. From his perspective, there was no issue with not explicitly encouraging his audience to research other mechanical keyboards on the market.
This is precisely where I believe the multiple roles Ali plays, as a business owner and entrepreneur, and as a productivity and educational content creator, create a problem he didn't fully grasp. For me, the core issue isn't about the ethics of not mentioning competitors in marketing. Instead, it's about the conflict of interest that emerges when you market your own product while holding a position of authority and trust.
When most individuals or companies market their products to new customers, these people don't usually start from a place of inherent trust, which means that you have to actively persuade them to make a purchase. In such scenarios, customers implicitly understand you're trying to sell them something and may not be acting solely in their best interests. (While some consumers do fall victim to this, I believe they also bear some responsibility for exercising caution with marketers.)
However, when you've cultivated a relationship built on trust outside the context of direct sales by positioning yourself as an educator on productivity and entrepreneurship, as Ali often does in his other videos, you inadvertently dilute the perception that you might be primarily focused on selling. This, in turn, makes your audience less inclined to seek alternatives when you do offer a product. So, even if Ali didn't actively discourage or prevent research, his audience was likely less inclined to do so due to his established authority. This might have been acceptable if his keyboard was genuinely best-in-class across all metrics, as that would align with providing the best for his audience. But this was clearly not the case here, and I suspect that's why Hipyo described it as "scummy."
In fact, this conflict of interest is nothing new. It's why teachers outside of the digital sphere typically have restrictions on endorsing products. For example, school teachers can't simply market their own products in the classroom, and advertising in children's TV programming generally doesn't come directly from the mouths of the presenters. This makes it all the more surprising to me that Ali didn't seem to recognize this as the underlying issue, instead focusing on it being solely a marketing message problem. Don't get me wrong, I still believe he excels at teaching people about productivity, building businesses, and navigating life in general, and I continue to enjoy his other content. But it certainly highlights that everyone has their blind spots.