3 ms·
Right, I can see where this idea comes from. On the other hand, if we look at the things in factual terms, pretty huge (even by today standards) undertakings we
by varjag 10y ago
Right, I can see where this idea comes from. On the other hand, if we look at the things in factual terms, pretty huge (even by today standards) undertakings were done in the times of rolodex and rotary phone. Bloody combined arms wars were fought and won on several theatres simultaneously over the globe in less time than U.S. involvement in Iraq. People got sent to the the Moon on a relatively short notice. The 747, which is still one of the most complex planes around by 2017 standard, took 3 years from concept to the maiden flight.
If we take any of the past achievements today, would you intuitively expect it to take longer nowadays? Take the 747 again: do increased friction, bugs in logistic software and Slack downtimes really offset productivity boost from model-based structural engineering CAD packages?
So I see how this idea might come up at a lunch discussion, but kindof sceptical to taking it at face value.
- coldtea 10y ago>Take the 747 again: do increased friction, bugs in logistic software and Slack downtimes really offset productivity boost from model-based structural engineering CAD packages? That's an engineering work though, on a constrained end product which is a known quantity. I'm pretty sure they'll be able to make it in the same time, or faster than in the 70s. Whereas what we were discussing was whether presidential terms were big enough to affect change -- some of which involve millions of people, special interests, thousands of systems, deeply interconnected (and non expected) side-effects and reactions, etc. Some 1880s or 19930s politician ruled in a much simpler country.