3 ms·

Friendly bit of advice, you may want to work on your hubris. In general, when a group of experts implements a complex solution there is a reason for it. Rather

Friendly bit of advice, you may want to work on your hubris. In general, when a group of experts implements a complex solution there is a reason for it. Rather than reveling in your ignorance and feeling of superiority you may want to instead research those reasons. Fyi, others in this thread have listed them.

cam_l 6y ago
Wasn't meant to read as hubris, I genuinely was curious (if a little unclear). FWIW I have read about this at length generally at a local level, living and working next to a couple of bridges with this issue. A high tech approach has been tried and abandoned with these bridges as they were (fatally) not effective (though not this high-tech). I naturally assumed there was some particular reason for the tunnel. I read the rest of the thread before I commented, the ones you point out were written after, and they do indeed go some way toward explaining that particular issue at that particular tunnel. The original post did not explain anything but the bad road design. While we are giving friendly advice, your comments may be better received if you gave them in a spirit of generosity, as I have taken yours, rather than jumping straight to judgements and epithets.
twic 6y ago
> Friendly bit of advice, you may want to work on your hubris. In general, when a group of experts implements a complex solution there is a reason for it. As an aside, i work in the software industry, and here, that is absolutely not the case at all.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  So do I and I disagree. I've often seen people make this claim only to have their "simple" rewrite crash and burn. They assumed the requirements were X and the system was overly complex for X. The requirements were in fact X+Y+Z+W and the system was complex to satisfy all those requirements. I've found that approaching these with the question of "what drove them to implement such a system" leads to much more enlightenment than going from the point of "they're idiots for implementing it this way."

cam_l 6y ago

Wasn't meant to read as hubris, I genuinely was curious (if a little unclear). FWIW I have read about this at length generally at a local level, living and working next to a couple of bridges with this issue. A high tech approach has been tried and abandoned with these bridges as they were (fatally) not effective (though not this high-tech). I naturally assumed there was some particular reason for the tunnel. I read the rest of the thread before I commented, the ones you point out were written after, and they do indeed go some way toward explaining that particular issue at that particular tunnel. The original post did not explain anything but the bad road design. While we are giving friendly advice, your comments may be better received if you gave them in a spirit of generosity, as I have taken yours, rather than jumping straight to judgements and epithets.

twic 6y ago

> Friendly bit of advice, you may want to work on your hubris. In general, when a group of experts implements a complex solution there is a reason for it. As an aside, i work in the software industry, and here, that is absolutely not the case at all.

marcinzm 6y ago
So do I and I disagree. I've often seen people make this claim only to have their "simple" rewrite crash and burn. They assumed the requirements were X and the system was overly complex for X. The requirements were in fact X+Y+Z+W and the system was complex to satisfy all those requirements. I've found that approaching these with the question of "what drove them to implement such a system" leads to much more enlightenment than going from the point of "they're idiots for implementing it this way."