3 ms·

That makes pretty good sense in the warmer end of temperatures, as even though sea water temperatures haven't been recorded above 130°F, friction may cause wate

That makes pretty good sense in the warmer end of temperatures, as even though sea water temperatures haven't been recorded above 130°F, friction may cause water temperatures against the hull to be much higher, and though probably never higher than the boiling point of water, it is possible for the temperature of steam to be much, much higher, though only at extreme pressures. Plus, air temperatures at sea level will be warmer than the water temperature in extremely warm areas. But it is not possible for sea water, anywhere in the oceans, to be much colder than freezing, nor does the air temperature at sea level begin to approach the coldest temperatures recorded on Earth, which are always recorded at elevation. I can't seem to find the record lowest temperature recorded at sea level, but I can't imagine it could be much lower than a few dozen degrees below 0°F. The question that comes to me is, why is that -100°F metal test even a standard? On the one hand, it is vanishingly unlikely a watercraft could ever experience temperatures that low or even 50°F above that, and on the other hand, temperature measure goes down all the way to -459.67°F. So why aren't they stress testing at -559.67°F? And if tests at those literally impossible temperatures were required, could we at least agree that that would be objectively stupid? And if so, there must be a way to determine what test temperatures are stupid to test at in a sliding scale diminishing towards test temperatures that are less stupid to test. Though other comments are intolerant of the metallurgists' actions, fundamentally, she was correct, although it is clearly unethical she faked tests results, her reasons for doing so are not entirely irrational. The more intelligent and the more expert an individual is, the less tolerant they will be when asked to do things they know could never matter. Though the military is famous for requiring irrational actions, such as constantly digging a ditch to only fill it in again (which I believe has something to do with proving compliance and following orders, maybe testing the command structure), the woman was not in the military. While I do not condone faking tests, I have some empathy for her, as it is difficult for intelligent individuals to intentionally do stupid things, especially when they are required to do so by less intelligent individuals. I could only guess that most of HN members are a lot like her, and less tolerant of objectively stupid requirements.

kergonath 4y ago
> metallurgists' actions, fundamentally, she was correct, although it is clearly unethical she faked tests results, her reasons for doing so are not entirely irrational. She falsified tests and produced parts that were not up to the specs required by the customer. That is very much wrong, regardless of how justified the specs are. If the navy is overly pessimistic, the discussion needs to happen with them. Second guessing and assuming that they won’t really need that anyway is what I’d expect from a cut-throat Chinese factory selling in AliExpress, not a supplier for a major western power’s navy.

kergonath 4y ago

> metallurgists' actions, fundamentally, she was correct, although it is clearly unethical she faked tests results, her reasons for doing so are not entirely irrational. She falsified tests and produced parts that were not up to the specs required by the customer. That is very much wrong, regardless of how justified the specs are. If the navy is overly pessimistic, the discussion needs to happen with them. Second guessing and assuming that they won’t really need that anyway is what I’d expect from a cut-throat Chinese factory selling in AliExpress, not a supplier for a major western power’s navy.