4 ms·

I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to

by ptero 10y ago

I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to analyze it and develop a fix in a well equipped lab convenient for experts to work in. Once the solution is known, deploy and validate it, ideally remotely or by shipping components, not by sending your experts on site. Sending an expert to a remote site or a ship to fix a problem is a last resort.

LordKano 10y ago
I can see how my statement was unclear. I'm going to go back and edit it for clarity.
derefr 10y ago
I think you are misreading; my reading of the parent post is that their last paragraph has the meaning "the push to lower military spending will remove the ability to afford the current process, which is bad, because the current process works great."
killjoywashere 10y ago
When N=10, and each one is a strategic asset, which, if found disabled, would cause every major head of state in the world to reassess their long-term global postures on technology, defense, and relations with the US, it doesn't take much to buy that plane ticket.
- writeslowly 10y ago
  I worked as a mechanical engineer in the nuclear power industry for a couple years and this happened frequently even for normal power plants. Like, one of the first projects I worked on was diagnosing a malfunctioning valve where most of the work was finite element analysis on computers, but we still had to send someone to take measurements and temperature readings since the company that made the valve no longer existed (and I'm not sure how you'd ship something like that since it was very large and used with contaminated water)
- ptero 10y ago
  I agree that the cost of the plane ticket is minor but this IMO makes the proper procedure starting with lab replication even more important. You usually get much better results when you work in a well equipped lab and have access to the right experts. For anything non-trivial "replicate, understand, fix, deploy" is a much better approach. Not always possible, and when it is not going to site may be the only option, but it should be fallback, not primary path. My 2c.
greglindahl 10y ago
You appear to be thinking that problems can typically be replicated in a lab without sending an expert to the remote site. My supercomputing startup (PathScale) made specialized networks for supercomputers. While most problems could be solved with remote diagnostics, I still spent a lot of time flying to customer sites. Sure, you can call it "a last resort", but it's necessary if the problem can't be replicated in the lab.
- ptero 10y ago
  Agree completely. Sometimes you cannot replicate things in the lab; then you go. But you do this only if you cannot replicate. I spend part of my time developing large, real time, visible systems and when things do not go as planned there is always a lot of pressure to go on site now and "just fix it". I have taken my lumps to learn that the right approach is to say "no, we will start in our lab".

by ptero 10y ago

LordKano 10y ago

I can see how my statement was unclear. I'm going to go back and edit it for clarity.

derefr 10y ago

I think you are misreading; my reading of the parent post is that their last paragraph has the meaning "the push to lower military spending will remove the ability to afford the current process, which is bad, because the current process works great."

killjoywashere 10y ago

When N=10, and each one is a strategic asset, which, if found disabled, would cause every major head of state in the world to reassess their long-term global postures on technology, defense, and relations with the US, it doesn't take much to buy that plane ticket.

writeslowly 10y ago
I worked as a mechanical engineer in the nuclear power industry for a couple years and this happened frequently even for normal power plants. Like, one of the first projects I worked on was diagnosing a malfunctioning valve where most of the work was finite element analysis on computers, but we still had to send someone to take measurements and temperature readings since the company that made the valve no longer existed (and I'm not sure how you'd ship something like that since it was very large and used with contaminated water)
ptero 10y ago
I agree that the cost of the plane ticket is minor but this IMO makes the proper procedure starting with lab replication even more important. You usually get much better results when you work in a well equipped lab and have access to the right experts. For anything non-trivial "replicate, understand, fix, deploy" is a much better approach. Not always possible, and when it is not going to site may be the only option, but it should be fallback, not primary path. My 2c.

greglindahl 10y ago

You appear to be thinking that problems can typically be replicated in a lab without sending an expert to the remote site. My supercomputing startup (PathScale) made specialized networks for supercomputers. While most problems could be solved with remote diagnostics, I still spent a lot of time flying to customer sites. Sure, you can call it "a last resort", but it's necessary if the problem can't be replicated in the lab.

ptero 10y ago
Agree completely. Sometimes you cannot replicate things in the lab; then you go. But you do this only if you cannot replicate. I spend part of my time developing large, real time, visible systems and when things do not go as planned there is always a lot of pressure to go on site now and "just fix it". I have taken my lumps to learn that the right approach is to say "no, we will start in our lab".