789 karma · joined November 13, 2020
Yes it is. At the absolute limit, balancing cost and reliability is this exact optimization exercise; we are talking about the exact same thing taken to different extremes. The difference between your ideal scenario and the practice outlined in the OP is the difference between 97% BOM efficiency and 99.99% BOM efficiency. At extreme scales, that gap can mean the difference between a company laying people off vs. surviving.
Side note - this same discipline is what ensures your widgets fail in a safe, controlled manner and not in a catastrophic way.
> I feel like you're reading my message extremely uncharitably
I saw an naive take on how mechanical design for failure works in practice and wanted to educate. I mean no disrespect, it's just seemed like it might be an unknown unknown for you. Your comment had at least a few upvotes, so there are others out there who may also lack the same information.
To your charitability point, though, my first take on the OP above is probably the most charitable take. The least charitable scenario for the OP is that the company wants to make sure they have higher annually recurring revenue from replacing their widgets breaking down but need to _barely_ beat or match the other guys in a warranty. Reality is probably somewhere in between.
Before anyone brings it up: sure, a lot of companies just pocket this savings or whatever, but a lot don't; you just don't hear about them because they're typically midsize companies that nobody complains about.
All these should be equivalent:
+ a b + c d +
+ + + a b c d
a + b + c + d
a b c d + + +
More insidiously, these should be equivalent: x = a + b
= + x a b
x a b = +
+ x = a b
x = a b +
x a + b =200 of the world's most experienced nuclear personnel are now unemployed. Yes, these people are the kind that get actively recruited by nation states.
It also needs to be a good watch. Don't forget to not fail at that.
If I was confident that increase was mostly going to the driver, I'd be fine with it.
Eventually the print head crashed into a failed print overnight, fusing nearly the entire head inside a ball of PLA filament that formed after the printer happily carried on shoving out molten plastic.
I didn't have another 3d printer to print the replacement parts. I was so frustrated with it at that point I just got rid of it.
Until I can treat a 3d printer like a Brother laser printer (forget about it for 9 months at a time and then have it work perfectly when I need it with zero maintenance), I don't think I'll invest in another one.
[0]: According to this calculator - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Part of being burnt out is not caring about any one problem enough to want to solve it yourself.
Never underestimate the power of hiring a new employee and training them how to do what the software would do, thereby writing zero lines of code.
That $250k in initial feature development costs + maintenance might only be $75k in personnel costs a year, which is a break-even of ~4 years. Depending on the problem, that might be the best option.
Also, if (in Texas) you stamp something outside of your area of expertise and it comes up in a review, it's viewed as if you never had the stamp in the first place[1]
[0]: https://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/
[1]: https://pels.texas.gov/downloads/lawrules.pdf - rules 133.97(b) and 137.59(b)
At least for mechanical, it's 4 years' working experience, documentation of sufficiently advanced projects, and sign-off from 3 other registered professional engineers who are familiar with your work.
A guy I worked with took the mechanical design variant. I don't know how the HVAC variant is. The test is over the most advanced stuff you learn in your degree; the "specialist" portion of the test (what your concentration is in, e.g., HVAC, thermal/fluids, or machine design and materials) is ~25 questions and you have 4 hours to complete it, in addition to the other 4 hour comprehensive portion that's the same for all takers.
On top of that, to keep your license, you need to complete some amount of classroom education every year.
As far as coursework goes, the coursework for some of my upper-level mech E classes was usually identical to a graduate-level course, the only difference being graduate students do a research paper+experiment for a final exam and undergrads do a traditional written exam since they had access to funding and we did not.
imo this comment is dismissive and glosses way too heavily over the rigor that goes into even the "lowliest" of engineering programs.
[0]: https://open.umich.edu/find/open-educational-resources/engin...
In Python, the closest you can get is a "frozen" dataclass, but you don't get true immutability[0]. What you _do_ get is effective enough for just about all practical use cases, except for the standard foot guns around mutable data structures.
@dataclass(frozen=True)
class MyModel:
...
[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/dataclasses.html#frozen-in...My second and third semesters went exactly as you described for courses where I was exposed to new things and wasn't just repeating high school - mainly because I had no training or coping mechanisms for learning under that type of pedagogy.
After getting my ass kicked in exams and failing a class for the first time in my life, I finally grokked that optional homework assignments were the professor's way of communicating learning milestones to us, and that even though the professor said they weren't graded (unless you asked), you still had to do them or you wouldn't learn the material well enough to pass the exam.
Still had a few bad grades because of the shit foundation I built for myself, but I brought a 2.2 GPA up to a 3.3 by the end.
The point is that it takes is exposure to that style of teaching before it can really be effective.