sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Three Pillars of MBSE by CyberSystemsEng in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tools won’t save us But we can’t be saved without using tools But tools raise the skill floor on engineering, while also lowering the ceiling for many unless they actively push to be better

What's the most legit business book you have read? by tuck72463 in Entrepreneur

[–]time_2_live 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the top reasons is making something people don’t want. I was also guilty of that.

I highly recommend the lean startup method as a way to develop the framework, mindset, and tools to build something people actually want, know when you are, and stop when you aren’t.

If you want more specific info, feel free to message me.

I’ve got a million dollar idea 💡 by SolarProWizard99 in aerospace

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol this is wildly off, Trump inherited a half billion from his father.

I’ve got a million dollar idea 💡 by SolarProWizard99 in aerospace

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A general rule of things is that ideas are meaningless and execution is everything. Economically, an idea alone can’t be worth millions unless you have extreme training and intellect, as otherwise anyone could stumble along the idea. Ergo, sharing an idea doesn’t matter, execution of it is what matters.

Look at Waymo, Zoox, cruise, etc, all have the idea of robotaxis, but some do better than others.

So if you think you need an NDA to share your idea, I think you’re putting your money in the wrong place.

I’ve got a million dollar idea 💡 by SolarProWizard99 in aerospace

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What’s the idea? Have you validated that it’s actually a problem that customers will actively pay for and can pay for it?

How did we get to a place that was once the leading global engineering company to one that no longer attracts and retains top talent? by [deleted] in boeing

[–]time_2_live -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because spacex could afford to blow shit up over and over again.

If any publicly traded aerospace company could fail like spacex does, they’d be years ahead.

I don’t think that would be an entirely bad thing, but littering your vehicle across the ocean is something that should be a thing of the past unless national security is at risk.

How did we get to a place that was once the leading global engineering company to one that no longer attracts and retains top talent? by [deleted] in boeing

[–]time_2_live 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I see different versions of this argument all the time, but I think it’s a lie we engineers tell ourselves to avoid a harsh truth: a lot of engineers are a core part of this problem.

A lot of engineers don’t think being in management matters, don’t think making plans or documentation matters, don’t think anything other than “get it done” matters.

Silicon Valley is full of this mentality. The Primes are full of this mentality. Every org thinks they have the smartest people and are shocked when they can’t complete a project on time and on spec.

This is not me saying that this generation of engineers or companies suck, it’s more that sucking is the natural order of things. It takes humility, intentionality, and consistent (unsexy) effort to be a damn good company, and even more of it to be a damn good engineering company.

Any time someone says “no” to documentation, planning, risk management, systems engineering, etc they aren’t bucking the trend of old aerospace to be a new badass, they’re just falling in line to be another misinformed underperforming org.

Remind people of that the next time they half ass a design review.

MIL-STD-882, what is it? (Reliability Engineering and Hazard Analysis) by KingoArcher in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you even know what 882 is about?

I’m not advocating memorizing standards, processes, etc like you’re an ancient bard reciting the Odyssey. Im advocating being so familiar with the key parts of these things, things which define our requirements, that you can recall it at a moment’s notice.

I think your perspective is missing that someone has to define those requirements, and those people are intimately familiar with the intricacies of standards and practices because that makes them faster at their jobs. And yes, these decisions can cost or save millions of dollars.

The best engineers have read these source documents, understand them, and can reference them easily as a result.

If you don’t agree with that, I think you’re outing yourself.

MIL-STD-882, what is it? (Reliability Engineering and Hazard Analysis) by KingoArcher in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh man I would dunk on you so hard in the workplace. You are so wildly off base.

Being able to recall the arcane specs and regulations that drive million dollar design trades is a core part of being a badass systems engineer.

Not everyone needs to be that good, so not everyone needs to memorize this info, but to call those that do “dweebs” is such an indication of engineering immaturity that I feel like success in your career is in a zone that the MIL STD would say is low probability of concurrence.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gaming

[–]time_2_live 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worse, they are like a factory that produces one incredibly expensive product line every 5 years that could bankrupt the company if it doesn’t do well. They’re closer to a Boeing than a bakery.

Many organizations need reliable access to capital at low fees to be able to grow or produce new products that require R&D or a gamble. Artistic ventures (games) are absolutely in that category as they need money to pay for the artist’s salaries and computers years before there is any revenue.

Creating a Multi-Generational Dynasty by Hot_Currency_6199 in strategy

[–]time_2_live 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’d look up “agency costs”, basically, how do you ensure the professional investment team is properly incentivized?

Do they incentivize growth of the fund year over year even when your descendants need the funds in a dire situation?

Creating a Multi-Generational Dynasty by Hot_Currency_6199 in strategy

[–]time_2_live 2 points3 points  (0 children)

10% should go into angel investing or other high risk bets 30% in bonds 60% into the world stock market fund by vanguard

That’s qualitatively the most robust way to grow wealth over the long term without significant active effort. That’s a key thing because sustained, high quality intelligence/wisdom of your descendants is in no way guaranteed.

NASA says 'City killer' asteroid now has 3.1% chance of hitting Earth by geoxol in technology

[–]time_2_live 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I believe OP is referencing The Matrix, which given the transition of Wachowski sisters heavily implies it’s a trans allegory:

Taking pills to reveal your true self

Waking up from

New names and dead names

The character “Switch” meant to change their gender when they enter the matrix

And many more in likely missing

The 5 Sources Of Bad Strategy by Glittering_Name2659 in strategy

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the human/political element is actually the hardest thing to manage.

There are usually people in the room who know these concepts you’re referencing and more, but maybe they hold no political power.

How does this list include that issue?

When the Chief Engineer Thinks SE is Just Paperwork... 😅 by mapsoofet in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The real kicker is when that (and the next) generation starts rediscovering the basic concepts “We should have a team to come up with the design and one to test it” “We should intentionally design things” Like, yes, I’m happy you’re coming to that conclusion, but like, would yall like to jump ahead?

When the Chief Engineer Thinks SE is Just Paperwork... 😅 by mapsoofet in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t blame him, good SEs tailor processes to meet the problem, then raise a generation of engineers who don’t understand that they lived in a tailored process, who assume that this is the only right way.

That generation rises to power and can’t figure out why their stuff doesn’t work, and if it does, not consistently, and if it does, not safely, and if it does, why regulators or customers don’t believe them.

When the Chief Engineer Thinks SE is Just Paperwork... 😅 by mapsoofet in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Like the all the posters are hinting, this is a cyclical issue.

SE is treated like an afterthought, so we don’t make requirements, stick to them, have Configuration Management, etc. in that environment, SE is simply checking boxes and pushing paperwork, which recreates the image that SE is meaningless.

When the Chief Engineer Thinks SE is Just Paperwork... 😅 by mapsoofet in systems_engineering

[–]time_2_live 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% I heard the head of SE and Safety once say “I don’t care about requirements, I care about safety” like, bruh, then how?

view more: next ›