I have personally worked in buildings that had a "badge readers all stopped working for a while" problem. Fortunately, the badge readers only affected ingress and not egress, and only controlled exterior doors and labs; that's easily solved with a doorstop and a person checking badges. I can very easily imagine what could have happened in those buildings if a badge was required to leave a conference room.
And if you want to make that scenario terrifying, imagine being there on a weekend or holiday.
> I can very easily imagine what could have happened in those buildings if a badge was required to leave a conference room.
The facilities team and fire marshal are also easily capable of imagining this, already have, and you can ask them about it.
In this case the doors would fail open, or are made of glass and can be broken down. It's not a /really/ secure location. It's just a tech company that likes to seem secure during work hours. After hours of course the janitors get to see everything.
You are utterly missing the point, to the point that you are analyzing this conversation through entirely the incorrect lens, in an effort to belittle.
In an effort to steelman your comment, you may have incorrectly interpreted the earlier "I wonder how well that is tested" as "this is unsafe and illegal" rather than "among the many things wrong with this, this has increased the number of things that can go wrong, and is less safe on an absolute scale, whether or not it's strictly legal and up to code", and then assumed everything else in subsequent comments was about fire safety, rather than being a series of points in support of locking people into a building is a bad idea.
You are asserting the competence of the fire marshal, as an argument in a conversation about locking employees and interviewees and visitors inside a company's office rooms.
What you may think was happening here: "heh, nerds think they're smarter than the fire marshal and nobody involved thought of this until they came along; of course there'd be a way for sufficiently capable humans to get out of a room if something went wrong, and of course this will have been made to pass fire code, which is the only thing being talked about here".
What was actually happening here: While with sufficient analysis (which has most likely been done) it is possible to provide a sufficient degree of fire safety to make it not against fire code to lock people into a building, that doesn't make it right or zero-cost or risk-free, nor does it alleviate the stress and potential problematic-but-non-fatal situations that could arise. At no point was the primary purpose of the comment "people might burn in a fire", even though the risk of that is not zero at any time and has likely been raised (within presumably-acceptable-to-fire-code levels) by such a setup.
When I said "I can very easily imagine what could have happened", I was not imagining a fire burning down the people with the building inside. I was imagining how few failures it would require to end up with people being trapped in a room for long enough to reach the level of stress required to physically break out of a room, compounded by having worked in labs where the air conditioning was sometimes woefully insufficient.
It takes a lot of stress to get normal people to the point that they're willing to break windows or doors or walls in order to escape a room, and nobody should be subjected to such things, because there's zero security justification for a company locking people inside at any time.
Grenfell Tower was fireproof as originally designed. The problem was renovations that compromised the original design, by adding highly flammable cladding panels to the exterior that allowed the fire to spread easily around the entire building.
More importantly, the HQ is built in California, which despite appearances isn't a capitalist dystopia but a local government dystopia.
Any random local government staffer is the most powerful person in the universe and obeying them is a religious edict. Apple has zero power to disobey anything in the fire code and they're probably not even capable of imagining doing so. That's why the random suburb they're in has the best public schools in the country and all the houses are like $5 million.
As an example there's currently a big empty lot next to said HQ where the mall used to be, because a random woman on the city council has blocked apartment construction for the last decade, because she thinks Apple employees will move in and molest local high school students.
Yes, the fire marshal has also thought of the first thing you just thought of to post. They aren't stupid.