She had just strapped the baby into the back seat and shut the door on her when the battery in the electric vehicle died without warning at her home in Scottsdale, Arizona
If it were up to engineers like this we’d all be direct wiring appliances as trivial as a phone charger, and they’d be pissed people weren’t willing to do it. People really aren’t dumb, there’s a reason for the world around us and it takes different folks. I do consulting, and the engineers (who usually call me under duress) always get frustrated with finance. I use the example of that person who got millions in fake invoices from google, facebook, etc as an example. It takes different people, and dismissing use cases is tantamount to saying “I’m just not good enough to build this product”. That’s all well and good for some things. No ones saying you need to make a heart-lung machine an accountant can operate. But like… cars exists.
They had such a huge head start, and just refused to do the real work.
I think that’s a really wide open statement that’s obviously missing nuance. There is a tremendous amount of product design that is dedicated to making sure the user can’t use it in a way that’s dangerous or harmful.
there’s a reason for the world around us and it takes different folks. I do consulting, and the engineers (who usually call me under duress) always get frustrated with finance.
it’s funny you thought this was some kind of dunking contest, like, oof, you really got those engineers you wily cpa, haha.
acting like there aren’t stupid people is ridiculous, you’re blatantly disregarding half the population. nice.
and thank you for echoing my sentiment, they need to be engineered FOR, as in, products must be created that accommodate them otherwise they’ll harm themselves and others at every turn.
but you, you’re a snarky one who likes to poke at people but doesn’t like to be poked back at, so, get bent, and have a great day.
typical ‘engineers don’t understand so I have to explain it to them’ mentality, doesn’t realize products really are engineered to accommodate and keep the users safe in so many ways. I have neither the patience nor the crayons to draw it out further.
lmfao, rereading this we 100% are in agreement and talking past each other with great zeal. Bare with me here.
First off, I’m not in finance. I used it as an example to point out that systems and considerations in a field outside of anyones experience are usually there for a reason, even if they’re frustrating in the moment because one hasn’t bumped into them yet.
To your point, you are 100% correct, there are tons of regulations and best practices developed over decades meant to minimize impact of edge cases. But it sounds like you’re in the field, and you and I both know that invariably someone will try and solve the problem by solving a different problem sometimes. It’s why project scoping and definition is so important.
I hope you’re having a great day, and that you might reread this and take away the same reminder I do that 2 people can be in strong agreement and still talk past each other.
If it were up to engineers like this we’d all be direct wiring appliances as trivial as a phone charger, and they’d be pissed people weren’t willing to do it. People really aren’t dumb, there’s a reason for the world around us and it takes different folks. I do consulting, and the engineers (who usually call me under duress) always get frustrated with finance. I use the example of that person who got millions in fake invoices from google, facebook, etc as an example. It takes different people, and dismissing use cases is tantamount to saying “I’m just not good enough to build this product”. That’s all well and good for some things. No ones saying you need to make a heart-lung machine an accountant can operate. But like… cars exists.
They had such a huge head start, and just refused to do the real work.
I think that’s a really wide open statement that’s obviously missing nuance. There is a tremendous amount of product design that is dedicated to making sure the user can’t use it in a way that’s dangerous or harmful.
it’s funny you thought this was some kind of dunking contest, like, oof, you really got those engineers you wily cpa, haha.
it’s not the flex you might imagine.
No. It’s not missing nuance. If you want them as customers stop fucking injuring/killing them. Simple as.
acting like there aren’t stupid people is ridiculous, you’re blatantly disregarding half the population. nice.
and thank you for echoing my sentiment, they need to be engineered FOR, as in, products must be created that accommodate them otherwise they’ll harm themselves and others at every turn.
but you, you’re a snarky one who likes to poke at people but doesn’t like to be poked back at, so, get bent, and have a great day.
gonna block you now.
I really don’t think you understand the point they are making.
typical ‘engineers don’t understand so I have to explain it to them’ mentality, doesn’t realize products really are engineered to accommodate and keep the users safe in so many ways. I have neither the patience nor the crayons to draw it out further.
lmfao, rereading this we 100% are in agreement and talking past each other with great zeal. Bare with me here.
First off, I’m not in finance. I used it as an example to point out that systems and considerations in a field outside of anyones experience are usually there for a reason, even if they’re frustrating in the moment because one hasn’t bumped into them yet.
To your point, you are 100% correct, there are tons of regulations and best practices developed over decades meant to minimize impact of edge cases. But it sounds like you’re in the field, and you and I both know that invariably someone will try and solve the problem by solving a different problem sometimes. It’s why project scoping and definition is so important.
I hope you’re having a great day, and that you might reread this and take away the same reminder I do that 2 people can be in strong agreement and still talk past each other.