45 ms·
The concept of "cutting corners" is difficult to define. Good engineering is not about pouring as much concrete as possible into the largest hole ever made by
by bambax 3y ago
The concept of "cutting corners" is difficult to define.
Good engineering is not about pouring as much concrete as possible into the largest hole ever made by mankind, for every bridge pillar.
It's the opposite! Good engineering is finding the minimum amount of concrete that will hold the bridge under all possible foreseeable circumstances.
Yes, sometimes the minimum proves too short, and in those times the failures are often catastrophic. But we're still looking for that minimum. We're never looking for "maximum safety with no regard for anything else". That would be impossible.
- salawat 3y agoAnd when we push that too far, or allow economics to overrule the fact we're putting squishy humans at the center of forces thhe vast majority of them have difficulty comprehending, people die. I'd prefer people stop couching engineering as "the quest for the cheapest we can make it", and more "lets not make an industrial scale coffin". None of which is possible without someone who can rein in risk comfortable execs with a hard, unoverridable no.
- jiggawatts 3y agoUnfortunately, that's wishful thinking. It just doesn't work that way under any kind of profit motive. Take a look at the third diagram in this paper titled "Risk Management in a Dynamic Society": http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmussen-safetyscience.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmussen-safetyscience.pdf Essentially, the "gradient descent" of business interests will invariably push safety design right to the edge that is deemed acceptable. Not to some "safe region" with decent wiggle room! The very edge. This is why the "minimum amount of concrete" will eventually be the minimum amount of concrete, and catastrophic failures will occasionally occur, even in foreseeable circumstances.
- krisoft 3y ago> safety design right to the edge that is deemed acceptable. Not to some "safe region" with decent wiggle room! And that is why having a safety margin is what is “deemed acceptable”. We do it with aviation and it has an excelent track record.
- jiggawatts 3y agoWe did it (past tense) in aviation, up to the point where business pressures pushed things to the edge. That's how MCAS happened and 346 people died -- because due to a profit motive, the minimum number of sensors (1) were installed instead of the desired safe number (3).
- poslathian 3y agoThis is truly the wisest comment on this otherwise very questionable thread. It is hugely challenging - and rewarding - to try and solve a constraint satisfaction problem that balances the risk, cost, upside that are a function of the huge set of decisions made in any complex undertaking. It is massively easier to identify flaws and demand mitigations, which you can do ad infinitum.