> The huge 'box' his demanded his team put together, to rescue people from a cave with passages so narrow diver could not wear tanks on their backs? To me that

> The huge 'box' his demanded his team put together, to rescue people from a cave with passages so narrow diver could not wear tanks on their backs? To me that demonstrates he has no ability to analyze a problem at high level and correctly apply the engineering resources available to him. The solution they came up with for those kids was extremely risky, involving drugging them and hoping they didn't drown in their face masks. It had never been done before in cave rescue history, and no-one really knew if it would actually work. Cave passages can be widened. It's actually quite common for cave rescues to involve widening passages. It's also relatively common for cavers to do that in general as part of ordinary exploration - I personally have helped widen an impassibly narrow passage with explosives myself. And yes, this is done underwater too. If the drugging solution had resulted in a kid drowning, there is a very good chance that the submarine solution would have been used. > Dishy, which had basic design flaws, such as a permanently attached power/data cable that if damaged meant you had to purchase an entire new unit That sounds like a typical engineering/marketing decision: rather than coming up with a tricky waterproof connector, just seal it permanently and sell the user a new one if they break it. Starlink as a whole has been very successful. > SpaceX's repeated failures, which they spin as "it's okay, we meant to fuck up, we got data!", including the disaster where his insistence on launching on 4/20 resulted in substantial vehicle damage (5-8 rockets failed), heavy damage to the facility, a 380 acre wide debris field (so severe you could see debris landing in the ocean from an aerial shot well outside the launch danger zone), a forest fire, and heavy damage to a car (parked within the "hazard area.") SpaceX is probably the most successful aerospace company in history., and they have some of the most reliable orbital rockets in history. Obviously their focus on meeting schedules and iterating is working for them. They just launched Starship again with even more success, and will probably do so yet again in a few more months. I really don't think SpaceX themselves care about occasionally spreading some debris around, setting some trees on fire, and damaging a car in the designated hazard area. There's lots of rocket engineers that have managed to destroy their own cars because their rockets failed and debris hit the employee parking lot.