It's a little bit of irony that the example of the author points to architects relying on a CAD system, a system that was presumably built by programmers. Who had to understand that the results their software produced had to have a high level of reliability--if it produced a wrong result, buildings could collapse, people could be hurt or killed. Errors would be extremely costly. So it's not impossible, just most software isn't held to that standard, because there's less incentive.
Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
71–80 of 186 posts
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. These things are designed and built to established practices, but in 99% of cases they aren't really "engineered" with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the like.
> A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. Hence why they are engineered. I suspect you mentioned houses because the people who build houses are often referred to as builders, but that is because the people working houses often only do work on a single component. The system as a whole is referred to as engineering, though. > with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the l…
There is definitely some engineering that goes on in the software world, but it's mostly construction.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#73This again? In general, Software Engineering is not engineering. It's not a technical issue, it's a 'software doesn't really kill people so government doesn't intervene in it'. In the case where the software is life and death it's generally developed in ways similar to 'real' engineering Fundamentally folks built building/structures without engineering, just so consistently caused death and destruction that govt step…
> In the case where the software is life and death it's generally developed in ways similar to 'real' engineering I think even that is highly romanticised by people. Take Boeing's two big blunders in recent years. The Max and Starliner both had terrible terrible software practices that were "by the book". The problem is "the book" really changed a lot, and the behemoths haven't kept up. It used to be that "the NASA w…
I think, rather, you're romanticizing what "real" engineering looks like.
Real engineering doesn't mean that mistakes are never made or that there are never bugs. Rather, it is that systems are tested thoroughly enough, and designed with enough failsafes and redundancy, that safety concerns are mitigated.
The problem in the Boeing case was not that the software had bugs. Lots of aviation software has bugs, it's actually very common. Rather, the problem was that they did not design the system to be safe in the event a bug occurred.
How that looks exactly tends to differ depending on the system. As a common example, many aircraft systems have other systems which monitor them and emit a warning if they detect something which doesn't make sense. Though this would've required Boeing to create technical material for pilots on how to respond to this new type of warning, which would've required training updates, which would've required recertification of their plane design, the cost of which Boeing desperately wanted to avoid. Fortunately (unfortunately), FAA oversight had become very lax, so Boeing instead just downplayed the safety concerns and nobody asked any questions.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't prove it's aliens. It does add to my mass-hysteria hypothesis. I want to see the biological remains firsthand in Zimbabwe, Japan, etc. I want to see the crater the UFO left on the ground. I want to see the craft. Where's the physical evidence? Not photos, actual dirt displaced, metal alloy, extraterrestrial biological remains, etc.
> This doesn't prove it's aliens. It does add to my mass-hysteria hypothesis You don't notice it do you? Re-read again what I wrote. At no point did I argue that it's aliens. Intentionally. You first point was proven wrong instantly "it's only an USA Phenomenon". You don't bother to research anything but stick with your hypothesis. You don't even go look for evidence yet are utterly convinced of the result of your co…
Good job not using the emdash. Your learning so quickly
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. Hence why they are engineered. I suspect you mentioned houses because the people who build houses are often referred to as builders, but that is because the people working houses often only do work on a single component. The system as a whole is referred to as engineering, though. > with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the l…
There is definitely some engineering that goes on in the software world, but it's mostly construction.
While there is construction involved in software, the computer does that work. There is no human analog there. The human end of software is entirely at the design level, which is the defining characteristic of engineering — so long as it is a system being designed, of course, which virtually all software is.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#76I wonder if there's a danger of comparing the real activity of programming with an idealized picture of engineering.
Most time spent by people with engineering degrees and job titles, is involved in things like organizing and arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, documentation, meetings. Doing "hard" quantitative engineering is rare, and a lot of the calculations have been rolled into the CAD software. Unless designs are really critical, it's possible to solve problems by the rule of "when in doubt, make it stout."
Is this OK? I think it's an outgrowth of the rising complexity of products. As the number of pieces rises by O(n), the number of interactions goes as O(n*2), so at some point the dominant effort is managing interactions between pieces, rather than engineering the pieces.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#77Most of software isn't engineering, it's just building. It's like a lot of these custom car/motorcycle builders vs actual engineers designing for a major manufacturer. You are both building a product but one places a lot more rigor on the science, data, and testing behind the decisions. That doesn’t mean the custom builders don't build good stuff, just that you won't get answers to things like how much force a partic…
It's solving and building, but most of all it's language. It's all language. Either telling the machine what to do or coordinating a group of people cohesively.
That's where engineering fits in. It's in the knowledge and information space, you make things like plans, arguments, decisions, documents.
That's not to say it all needs to be written down; someone can do the "engineering" of a small project all in their own head and then implement it themselves.
The engineering process itself is a form of knowledge work. A single person can do both tasks of course.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've always wondered why UFOs are only a USA phenomenon It plain isn't and to claim that it is shows that you have done EXACTLY 0 research into the topic. This kind of bad faith engagement shows an utter lack of curiosity. UFOs are huge in South America within just seconds you can find hundreds of sightings and discussions about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varginha_UFO_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
This doesn't prove it's aliens. It does add to my mass-hysteria hypothesis. I want to see the biological remains firsthand in Zimbabwe, Japan, etc. I want to see the crater the UFO left on the ground. I want to see the craft. Where's the physical evidence? Not photos, actual dirt displaced, metal alloy, extraterrestrial biological remains, etc.
I have no dog in this fight, but I want to ask a question.
What are your thoughts about multiple pilots in formation seeing things that are corroborated by optical, laser, and radar sensors used by the local aircraft and remote radar platforms?
Because that's where things get fun! :)
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. Hence why they are engineered. I suspect you mentioned houses because the people who build houses are often referred to as builders, but that is because the people working houses often only do work on a single component. The system as a whole is referred to as engineering, though. > with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the l…
There is definitely some engineering that goes on in the software world, but it's mostly construction.
Software development is more like drawing up the blueprints for a building than it is like working with materials made of atoms. (The analog in software to the construction phase of the creation of a physical building either does not exist or proceeds very quickly, is very unlikely to fail or be delayed and is almost completely automated.)
The word "patterns" a la software patterns was taken directly from the writings of an architect of physical buildings (namely Christopher Alexander). It is not an accident that it was not taken from the work of a construction worker, not even a high-level one in charge of hiring subcontractors and of years-long billion-dollar construction projects.
The most salient difference between blueprints and software artifacts is the sheer complexity of software artifacts these days (which is why there aren't organizations that employ many tens of thousands of draftsmen and architects of physical structures) but that is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't prove it's aliens. It does add to my mass-hysteria hypothesis. I want to see the biological remains firsthand in Zimbabwe, Japan, etc. I want to see the crater the UFO left on the ground. I want to see the craft. Where's the physical evidence? Not photos, actual dirt displaced, metal alloy, extraterrestrial biological remains, etc.
I have no dog in this fight, but I want to ask a question. What are your thoughts about multiple pilots in formation seeing things that are corroborated by optical, laser, and radar sensors used by the local aircraft and remote radar platforms? Because that's where things get fun! :)
Sadly you'll see from his other responses that thinking is the thing he doesn't