Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "" video.

AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I love this comment and the thread it has created. Below the line is the rest of the comment I put in the pinned comment at the top. This video and this thread is so on topic for so much of what's going on these days. Look at all the AI hype and how every media clown keeps saying it will increase productivity BUT NONE of them can explain how it will increase productivity. Similarly there's the hype about Quantum computing, which I do think has some interesting possibilities but I'd recommend Sabine Hossenfelder's video on the difference between the promises being made and that actual applications that exist. Great video and a great thread - kudos to all involved. ------------------------------------------------------- As far as videos highlighting the need to "design for purpose" this is arguably one of the best if not the best I have seen yet and that goes right across the entire engineering space. I have not seen your channel before so I am looking to see what else you have done. So you know where I am coming from. A few years after graduating I landed in industrial control systems which are the sensor & computer systems we use to run the world. Everything from traffic lights to nuclear power stations. Basically the most used computer systems that nobody knows about because its neither sexy or spiffy or anything else. My life goal was to build a lunar base. So I have spent 35+ years learning anything that might help that goal. SO i did things like manufacturing, mining and water treatment. I have even done sewerage treatment plant which is actually one of the first things that's needed to be built on the moon. Across all these industries I have seen case after case of designs that were NOT "fit for purpose" because someone thought this is what people needed rather than asking what they needed. back around 2005 I saw a documentary on the Iraq Invasion called "Rumsfeld's War" and at one point they described the Powell Doctrine and broke it down to its 4 most important points. What struck me immediately was how easily that translated into engineering. The 4 points are - specification, resources, viability and time frame. Its very simple when you think about it. Specification - WHY & WHAT are we going to do and HOW we'll do it? Resources - Do we have the people, skills, machinery, materials and money to do what we want? Viability - Are we in agreement that what we are going to do is going to work? Time Frame - Can we get this done in the time we have to get it done? The reason WHY the Apollo program was so successful was because they had all 4 of those points covered. The reason why the Space Shuttle was less successful and by some measures a failure was because they didn't. AND YES the reason why the Invasion of Iraq eventually failed was because they didn't ask the right questions and Powell challenged people like Rumsfeld on it. In that system that Powell developed he included the concepts of "fit for purpose" and "understanding the task" which are keys to any successful project. Look at your examples and see how ALL of them fail on one or both of those key concepts. Its the first video of yours I have seen and I really look forward to more of them. If possible I'd love to talk to you about how this applies to other areas of engineering where I have worked.
10
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: As far as videos highlighting the need to "design for purpose" this is arguably one of the best if not the best I have seen yet and that goes right across the entire engineering space. I have not seen your channel before so I am looking to see what else you have done. So you know where I am coming from. A few years after graduating I landed in industrial control systems which are the sensor & computer systems we use to run the world. Everything from traffic lights to nuclear power stations. Basically the most used computer systems that nobody knows about because its neither sexy or spiffy or anything else. My life goal was to build a lunar base. So I have spent 35+ years learning anything that might help that goal. SO i did things like manufacturing, mining and water treatment. I have even done sewerage treatment plant which is actually one of the first things that's needed to be built on the moon. Across all these industries I have seen case after case of designs that were NOT "fit for purpose" because someone thought this is what people needed rather than asking what they needed. back around 2005 I saw a documentary on the Iraq Invasion called "Rumsfeld's War" and at one point they described the Powell Doctrine and broke it down to its 4 most important points. What struck me immediately was how easily that translated into engineering. The 4 points are - specification, resources, viability and time frame. Its very simple when you think about it. Specification - WHY & WHAT are we going to do and HOW we'll do it? Resources - Do we have the people, skills, machinery, materials and money to do what we want? Viability - Are we in agreement that what we are going to do is going to work? Time Frame - Can we get this done in the time we have to get it done? The reason WHY the Apollo program was so successful was because they had all 4 of those points covered. The reason why the Space Shuttle was less successful and by some measures a failure was because they didn't. AND YES the reason why the Invasion of Iraq eventually failed was because they didn't ask the right questions and Powell challenged people like Rumsfeld on it. In that system that Powell developed he included the concepts of "fit for purpose" and "understanding the task" which are keys to any successful project. Look at your examples and see how ALL of them fail on one or both of those key concepts. Its the first video of yours I have seen and I really look forward to more of them. If possible I'd love to talk to you about how this applies to other areas of engineering where I have worked.
1