7 ms·

It seems a bit harsh to me to call this "incredibly disrespectful". I doubt that "incredible disrespect" was intended, nor is it inherent to the statement. Wha

by swombat 10y ago

It seems a bit harsh to me to call this "incredibly disrespectful". I doubt that "incredible disrespect" was intended, nor is it inherent to the statement. What I think you mean is that the grandparent comment strikes you personally as not recognising the efforts of other engineers around the world, and you wish it did. I think that would be a less incendiary and aggressive way to get your point across, and, in most places, more likely to get a useful response.

abduhl 10y ago
Thank you for the comment but your recommendation is unnecessary - from reading your post it is clear that the major components of my complaint were understood without issue. Disrespect occurs with or without intent. The original poster's comment can only be construed in one way: the Swiss do things this way, it is better, and therefore everybody else does it wrong. The claim (50% spent on planning) is clearly and demonstrably wrong. As someone who works in the tunneling industry I take personal offense to the implication that we (Americans, British, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, everyone not Swiss) don't "invest the time up-front in planning and thinking" before we "set the machinery in motion" and that we have a work methodology that isn't "oriented towards reaping long term profits with interest".
- mistermann 10y ago
  HN is not a safe space. Disagree fine, but please don't try to outlaw speech because it's "disrespectful".
  - abduhl 10y ago
    I completely agree, HN is not a safe space. That is why I feel justified in blatantly calling out a comment I see as disrespectful. I didn't try to "outlaw" his comment - I upvoted the comment, as I upvote any comment I feel encourages or needs discussion.
    - Annatar 10y ago
      > I upvoted the comment, as I upvote any comment I feel encourages or needs discussion. And for that kind of thinking alone, I upvote this comment of yours. Kudos and respect to you.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      I too upvoted this. Your other posts I didn't touch, either because I don't feel qualified to judge them or because I didn't agree. As others I found you somewhat incendiary but I am still surprised by the massive downvoting you seem to have experienced :-/
  - andrepd 10y ago
    Don't try to outlaw speech because it's disrespectful, and don't try to outlaw dissent because it's critical of disrespectfulness. Goes both ways.
- otterley 10y ago
  The opinion being raised here is that the overall system the Swiss are using provides better results than those others are using. It's not necessarily that others don't put forth effort (despite the language), but that the Swiss yield the kind of results that others don't. Most people aren't judged by effort. They're judged by results. Another way of putting it: the proof of the engineering is in the working.
  - abduhl 10y ago
    The opinion being raised here is not supported by evidence. The only testable claim that can be evaluated in the original poster's comment is that, in the Swiss system, planning is 50% of the work. I ask specifically for any breakdown of cost or schedule, the two metrics by which all public work is judged, where planning occupies 50% of the work. Simply looking at an isolated example of a project that was on schedule and under budget (for varying definitions of schedule and budget, but that's how it goes in construction - the Seattle SR 99 replacement tunnel project along with the Seawall replacement is currently "on schedule" if you believe the management of those projects) does not provide the data to back up the poster's statement. Without the data we cannot adequately make the determination if the "Swiss system" described by the poster is better than any other system. There is a saying in the poker community: don't be results oriented.
    - otterley 10y ago
      I don't want infrastructure engineering to be like poker, and neither should you. The only way in which they are alike is that there is a strong possibility of someone getting killed if you cheat.
      - abduhl 10y ago
        I 100% want engineering to be like poker. I say that as a registered professional engineer with many friends on crews currently standing in holes that I have designed. Understand what I mean when I say "like poker": the poker mindset is a very analytical, statistically oriented approach. The best players never make a bet/call/fold without some form of logical basis for their plays. They have an internal model that tells them "this play will succeed 50% of the time and I stand to win 3x my risked value and so it is profitable". Similarly in engineering, no decision should be made without an internal model where risk can be evaluated - "this structure will fail 5% of the time and kill somebody but it costs $10,000,000 to get more out of it and so it is not profitable". Engineering - especially tunneling - is a gamble. You cannot design away every risk. All we can do is show up with our belts and suspenders on and hope our pants don't fall down when we're running out of the hole.
- elithrar 10y ago
  Focusing on the "50% planning" comment is wrong, and it's likely an exaggeration. What you should be asking is evidence of Swiss public works projects meeting time & budget constraints vs. projects in other countries, which is the key takeaway here.
- Annatar 10y ago
  > The original poster's comment can only be construed in one way: the Swiss do things this way, it is better, and therefore everybody else does it wrong. The claim (50% spent on planning) is clearly and demonstrably wrong. That is correct, in my experience the Swiss way is the best way, and I have yet to work in another country (and I'm international) where they do it better or with more planning and forethought. The only other mentality which comes close to that is that of Japanese. This is obviously anecdotal, but to me it is perfectly understandable why the Swiss managed to do it within time and budget constraints. Everywhere else I've worked, and what I've seen, it was not as good. I've put the Swiss saying that planning is 50% of the work to the test, and have had great results with it. Again this is anecdotal, but to me, it confirms that their way of thinking is correct, and I appreciate it. By the way, the article in German mentions multiple times that certain challenges which were met were expected because they were identified during the planning and preparation stage.

by swombat 10y ago

abduhl 10y ago

Thank you for the comment but your recommendation is unnecessary - from reading your post it is clear that the major components of my complaint were understood without issue. Disrespect occurs with or without intent. The original poster's comment can only be construed in one way: the Swiss do things this way, it is better, and therefore everybody else does it wrong. The claim (50% spent on planning) is clearly and demonstrably wrong. As someone who works in the tunneling industry I take personal offense to the implication that we (Americans, British, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, everyone not Swiss) don't "invest the time up-front in planning and thinking" before we "set the machinery in motion" and that we have a work methodology that isn't "oriented towards reaping long term profits with interest".

mistermann 10y ago
HN is not a safe space. Disagree fine, but please don't try to outlaw speech because it's "disrespectful".
- abduhl 10y ago
  I completely agree, HN is not a safe space. That is why I feel justified in blatantly calling out a comment I see as disrespectful. I didn't try to "outlaw" his comment - I upvoted the comment, as I upvote any comment I feel encourages or needs discussion.
  - Annatar 10y ago
    > I upvoted the comment, as I upvote any comment I feel encourages or needs discussion. And for that kind of thinking alone, I upvote this comment of yours. Kudos and respect to you.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    I too upvoted this. Your other posts I didn't touch, either because I don't feel qualified to judge them or because I didn't agree. As others I found you somewhat incendiary but I am still surprised by the massive downvoting you seem to have experienced :-/
- andrepd 10y ago
  Don't try to outlaw speech because it's disrespectful, and don't try to outlaw dissent because it's critical of disrespectfulness. Goes both ways.
otterley 10y ago
The opinion being raised here is that the overall system the Swiss are using provides better results than those others are using. It's not necessarily that others don't put forth effort (despite the language), but that the Swiss yield the kind of results that others don't. Most people aren't judged by effort. They're judged by results. Another way of putting it: the proof of the engineering is in the working.
- abduhl 10y ago
  The opinion being raised here is not supported by evidence. The only testable claim that can be evaluated in the original poster's comment is that, in the Swiss system, planning is 50% of the work. I ask specifically for any breakdown of cost or schedule, the two metrics by which all public work is judged, where planning occupies 50% of the work. Simply looking at an isolated example of a project that was on schedule and under budget (for varying definitions of schedule and budget, but that's how it goes in construction - the Seattle SR 99 replacement tunnel project along with the Seawall replacement is currently "on schedule" if you believe the management of those projects) does not provide the data to back up the poster's statement. Without the data we cannot adequately make the determination if the "Swiss system" described by the poster is better than any other system. There is a saying in the poker community: don't be results oriented.
  - otterley 10y ago
    I don't want infrastructure engineering to be like poker, and neither should you. The only way in which they are alike is that there is a strong possibility of someone getting killed if you cheat.
    - abduhl 10y ago
      I 100% want engineering to be like poker. I say that as a registered professional engineer with many friends on crews currently standing in holes that I have designed. Understand what I mean when I say "like poker": the poker mindset is a very analytical, statistically oriented approach. The best players never make a bet/call/fold without some form of logical basis for their plays. They have an internal model that tells them "this play will succeed 50% of the time and I stand to win 3x my risked value and so it is profitable". Similarly in engineering, no decision should be made without an internal model where risk can be evaluated - "this structure will fail 5% of the time and kill somebody but it costs $10,000,000 to get more out of it and so it is not profitable". Engineering - especially tunneling - is a gamble. You cannot design away every risk. All we can do is show up with our belts and suspenders on and hope our pants don't fall down when we're running out of the hole.
elithrar 10y ago
Focusing on the "50% planning" comment is wrong, and it's likely an exaggeration. What you should be asking is evidence of Swiss public works projects meeting time & budget constraints vs. projects in other countries, which is the key takeaway here.
Annatar 10y ago
> The original poster's comment can only be construed in one way: the Swiss do things this way, it is better, and therefore everybody else does it wrong. The claim (50% spent on planning) is clearly and demonstrably wrong. That is correct, in my experience the Swiss way is the best way, and I have yet to work in another country (and I'm international) where they do it better or with more planning and forethought. The only other mentality which comes close to that is that of Japanese. This is obviously anecdotal, but to me it is perfectly understandable why the Swiss managed to do it within time and budget constraints. Everywhere else I've worked, and what I've seen, it was not as good. I've put the Swiss saying that planning is 50% of the work to the test, and have had great results with it. Again this is anecdotal, but to me, it confirms that their way of thinking is correct, and I appreciate it. By the way, the article in German mentions multiple times that certain challenges which were met were expected because they were identified during the planning and preparation stage.