5 ms·

Citations? Or just idle theorizing?

ncmncm 5y ago
It is the same process we see everywhere that massive cost overruns and unlimited delays manifest. Modern management methods can control cost and schedule where that is an actual goal. Where they don't demonstrates the actual goal. Every penny of cost overrun goes into some pocket. Smart management ensures many, many pocketholders are allied to keep the gravy train running.
- craftinator 5y ago
  > Modern management methods can control cost and schedule Perhaps the stupidest, most vacuous comment I've read this week.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  Don't attribute to conspiracy what can be adiquately explained by beurocracy.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Millions of large buildings, and tens of thousands of huge ships, dams, and bridges are built on time and on budget. The alternative would be that management cannot be judged on its results. Some bridges, invariably urban, go massively over budget and schedule. Urban tunnels, routinely. Military procurement, routinely. Are people who manage those systematically dumber than the rest? Or do they have different measures of success? What is common to those apparent failures is that they serve as a reliable, legal, long-term conduit from public funds to a multitude of private pockets. F-35 can never be cancelled, no matter what, because it has subcontractors in 48 states. The F-35 is a massive success to its backers: it secured monumental patronage. That it can actually take off and land, too, is a miracle.
    - Edman274 5y ago
      An experimental fusion reactor is not a large building, or ship, or dam, or bridge. We've been building large buildings since the pyramids of Giza. We've been building large ships since before the Dreadnought. We've been building large dams since at least the Great Depression. The same goes for bridges. I don't think it's intellectually honest to compare budget and time overruns for fusion reactors to budget and time overruns for skyscrapers. You kind of say it without realizing it - "millions of large buildings", well yeah: if we have a lot of practice doing something - like building millions of large buildings - then wouldn't you expect us to do a better job of being on time and on budget than the handful of research efforts into the holy grail of energy production?
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        This is not a comparison of "budget and time overruns for fusion reactors to budget and time overruns for skyscrapers". It is a statement about management practices, regardless of the project. The statement is that a blue-sky project such as a fusion system is easily recognized by people on the lookout for sources of unlimited money with no strings attached. When they get control of the project, the bulk of the money will not end up spent on the extremely difficult problems entailed. If the problems are as difficult as expected, handing the money over to people who benefit by not solving them will reliably fail to solve them. We know with absolute certainty, already, that there is no "holy grail of energy production" at the end of it. The most favorable imaginable result is a system much more expensive to operate than a fission plant that produces no more power.
    - liamwire 5y ago
      Or, Occam’s razor. A sufficiently complex engineering task can exist such that it fully taxes even international, multi-nation state-backed parallel capacity for engineering, and science. This is already demonstrated by your own examples provided, just at a smaller scale. If there were ever such a project to push against the capacity of our ability to do truly enormous, complex engineering, I’d say a massive, cutting-edge fusion reactor is as good a candidate as one could propose. Moreover, the economic and educational stimulus these projects provide cannot be ignored when accounting for the indirect, long-tail returns this project, and those similar, provide. Put another way: ostensibly, achieving net energy gain from fusion is the end of our near-term (energy) needs, conveniently breezing over the evolution and refinements of any system, as well as delivery and storage, but these are paths that are comparatively well mapped out. It then follows that, short of catastrophic losses prior to succeeding (which while not a given per se, seems more a function of time than of ability outright), any reasonable cost is worthwhile. Reasonable, in this context, meaning one that doesn’t bankrupt, or otherwise severely impact the participants in a negative fashion. Given the scale of these budgets vs. that of social welfare programs, military spending, etc. I don’t see that as an issue worth being concerned over. One can know the budget has been exceeded, without that also bringing down the house. Ultimately, to an extent you’re asserting a false dichotomy. It can be true that there’s continued, substantial progress towards the stated goals of these projects, even if the budgets, horizons, and timelines aren’t to your taste. It can also be true that there’s waste, inefficiencies, and even (both legalised and otherwise) corruption. One does not preclude the other.

It is the same process we see everywhere that massive cost overruns and unlimited delays manifest. Modern management methods can control cost and schedule where that is an actual goal. Where they don't demonstrates the actual goal. Every penny of cost overrun goes into some pocket. Smart management ensures many, many pocketholders are allied to keep the gravy train running.

craftinator 5y ago
> Modern management methods can control cost and schedule Perhaps the stupidest, most vacuous comment I've read this week.
IntrepidWorm 5y ago
Don't attribute to conspiracy what can be adiquately explained by beurocracy.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Millions of large buildings, and tens of thousands of huge ships, dams, and bridges are built on time and on budget. The alternative would be that management cannot be judged on its results. Some bridges, invariably urban, go massively over budget and schedule. Urban tunnels, routinely. Military procurement, routinely. Are people who manage those systematically dumber than the rest? Or do they have different measures of success? What is common to those apparent failures is that they serve as a reliable, legal, long-term conduit from public funds to a multitude of private pockets. F-35 can never be cancelled, no matter what, because it has subcontractors in 48 states. The F-35 is a massive success to its backers: it secured monumental patronage. That it can actually take off and land, too, is a miracle.
  - Edman274 5y ago
    An experimental fusion reactor is not a large building, or ship, or dam, or bridge. We've been building large buildings since the pyramids of Giza. We've been building large ships since before the Dreadnought. We've been building large dams since at least the Great Depression. The same goes for bridges. I don't think it's intellectually honest to compare budget and time overruns for fusion reactors to budget and time overruns for skyscrapers. You kind of say it without realizing it - "millions of large buildings", well yeah: if we have a lot of practice doing something - like building millions of large buildings - then wouldn't you expect us to do a better job of being on time and on budget than the handful of research efforts into the holy grail of energy production?
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      This is not a comparison of "budget and time overruns for fusion reactors to budget and time overruns for skyscrapers". It is a statement about management practices, regardless of the project. The statement is that a blue-sky project such as a fusion system is easily recognized by people on the lookout for sources of unlimited money with no strings attached. When they get control of the project, the bulk of the money will not end up spent on the extremely difficult problems entailed. If the problems are as difficult as expected, handing the money over to people who benefit by not solving them will reliably fail to solve them. We know with absolute certainty, already, that there is no "holy grail of energy production" at the end of it. The most favorable imaginable result is a system much more expensive to operate than a fission plant that produces no more power.
  - liamwire 5y ago
    Or, Occam’s razor. A sufficiently complex engineering task can exist such that it fully taxes even international, multi-nation state-backed parallel capacity for engineering, and science. This is already demonstrated by your own examples provided, just at a smaller scale. If there were ever such a project to push against the capacity of our ability to do truly enormous, complex engineering, I’d say a massive, cutting-edge fusion reactor is as good a candidate as one could propose. Moreover, the economic and educational stimulus these projects provide cannot be ignored when accounting for the indirect, long-tail returns this project, and those similar, provide. Put another way: ostensibly, achieving net energy gain from fusion is the end of our near-term (energy) needs, conveniently breezing over the evolution and refinements of any system, as well as delivery and storage, but these are paths that are comparatively well mapped out. It then follows that, short of catastrophic losses prior to succeeding (which while not a given per se, seems more a function of time than of ability outright), any reasonable cost is worthwhile. Reasonable, in this context, meaning one that doesn’t bankrupt, or otherwise severely impact the participants in a negative fashion. Given the scale of these budgets vs. that of social welfare programs, military spending, etc. I don’t see that as an issue worth being concerned over. One can know the budget has been exceeded, without that also bringing down the house. Ultimately, to an extent you’re asserting a false dichotomy. It can be true that there’s continued, substantial progress towards the stated goals of these projects, even if the budgets, horizons, and timelines aren’t to your taste. It can also be true that there’s waste, inefficiencies, and even (both legalised and otherwise) corruption. One does not preclude the other.