> A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated. I think a large part of the problem is that a s

> A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated. I think a large part of the problem is that a sort of very scientific "modify a single variable at a time" type of engineering culture permeated academia a couple decades ago and now we're reaping what we sow. The sort of practical "I snipped this corner so now they pack neatly four to a box from the supplier and I altered that curve so now there's clearance for more types of wrenches around the bolt head and I smoothed out the rib shape for die longevity and in doing all that I reduced the mass by 6.5%" type stuff that engineering culture used to look up to has been replaced with KPI chasing "You told me to reduce mass by 6% and I reduced mass by 7%, 2nd and 3rd order consequences be damned" engineering culture that used to be fairly confined to the rich half of a certain continent is now what is worshipped. And likewise you get spiraling complexity because the only thing holding it back is the bean counters (when doing so is a priority) whereas before there was kind of natural restraint keeping it back on both sides. So as they go around updating platforms and models and sub-assemblies as whatnot the compliance ratchets up, unless the mandate at the time is to reduce it.