Conversation

Notices

1. d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 03:34:46 JST d
   delusional. it would be a 20 year project *minimum* to kinda sorta get manufacturing going again on US soil, if everybody bought in and worked together
   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks and Kenny Blankenship like this.
   • petra (petra@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:19:13 JST petra

     in reply to

     • VaxxSabbath
     • mikerotch
     @VaxxSabbath @mikerotch @deprecated_ii Technicians - it would take just a few years (<4) to train and be usefully competent.
     Engineers, Physicists, etc. - 4 to 6 years just to produce one. Plus 3 or 4 years to just be getting knowledgeable in his field. Still useful, though.
     Researchers - 10 years to produce one. Another 5 to start productively contributing at that level. Currently maybe 1 in 100 is capable of genuine innovation because of the DEI fat.
     
     I'm just throwing numbers out from my experience in engineering R&D.
     This could be compressed some with a crash program that's fr fr.
     
     In my country we've been flooded with imports and they've displaced native engineers and scientists. The big problem is it's safe to assume every single one of them is turning IP back over to their home countries.
     
     Even one of them present on a team will make the natives go, Fuck this. They'll know the management and company/organization is bullshit and just show up for the pay cheque.
     Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks likes this.
   • mikerotch (mikerotch@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:19:14 JST mikerotch

     in reply to

     • VaxxSabbath
     @VaxxSabbath @deprecated_ii If you think this is about how long it takes to build a plane you're missing the point.
     
     It's about how long it takes to train a person who is able to build planes.
     
     You can not will those kinds of people into existence with money. Acquiring expertise is a long process that can not be rushed and whose result is not readily transferable other than via the same means it was generated originally.
     
     Maintaining expertise is a continuous flow process and Boeing (and many other companies) have interrupted it. They got short term gains out of doing so in exchange for catastrophic consequences.
     Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks likes this.
   • VaxxSabbath (vaxxsabbath@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:19:14 JST VaxxSabbath

     in reply to

     • mikerotch
     @mikerotch @deprecated_ii

     1. no, I did not miss the point, you did not read correctly
     2. yes, I agree, this is about the people
     3. those people do not need to be "willed into existence"; they already exist, the problem is that there is precisely zero incentive for them to participate in anything other than shit-tier wagecucking and vidya
     4. the hard part was doing this shit the first time, originally; now that we know it can be done, the trick is to get people to have some reason to want to keep doing it (and no, the "expertise" does not take twenty years to generate, it takes about 2-3 years for a team staffed with 100% A-game-bringers to get to that level reliably)
     5. the cure for this problem is to motivate the people who have the skill (bright White kids) to participate in this process with the certainty that they will see something from it, rather than burning through their life to pad some kike pedophile's pockets
     6. we have better knowledge and better tools now than we did when this shit was done the first time, which will also make it faster

     you are arguing that IT'S ALL OGRE, and I am telling you, like Tony Soprano, that when you moan about "where did all the geniuses who built this shit go?", that "you're looking at them, asshole"

     this is 100% a motivational and economic problem, and it starts going away instantly when the parasitic drag that is compelling the disconnection of "effort" from "reward" is removed from the equation

   • mikerotch (mikerotch@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:19:15 JST mikerotch

     in reply to
     @deprecated_ii When Boeing designed the 777 the average engineer working on it had 20 years of experience.
     
     As of now they don't have anybody with 20 years of experience because they drove them all out of the company to make the stock look better.
     
     I don't have a degree in math but it sounds to me like it would take a minimum of twenty years to recover their previous competence, and only then if the people with the same competence and conscientiousness are available to be hired and their HR staff is willing to employ and retain them.
     
     Also somebody would need to be willing to fund the operations of the company for two decades while everybody was getting back up to speed.
     
     Even if the federal government stepped in to make that happen, I don't see any way the money wouldn't all just get stolen long before the goal was achieved.
     Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks likes this.
   • VaxxSabbath (vaxxsabbath@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:19:15 JST VaxxSabbath

     in reply to

     • mikerotch

     @mikerotch @deprecated_ii I doubt it would take two decades, because it didn't take two decades to make the planes in the first place

     what it takes is purging the selection filters (everybody starts at zero again, no more Nigger Preference or Pussy Pass), resetting them to select ruthlessly for "demonstratable, measurable competence", then offering outsized rewards to those who make it through those filters, literal fuck-you money

     successfully ship 100 new 737s with zero defects? okay, you just got the ability to buy that home on Mercer Island for cash without even breaking a sweat

     (and that's for the engineers, not for the fucking executives)

     if you reset the incentives and bias them towards big payouts, you get the people back in the game that should be there, and that's what needs to happen to overcome forty years of learned helplessness, apathy, and nihilism inculcated deeply by the practice of kiking the entire economy to death; the jew must hemorrhage money to replace what was drained from the system, and there will have to be interest and penalties applied to get that pump primed again and the patient's heartbeat back

     or, well, they can roll the dice and see what happens if they don't

     (lol)

   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks (washedoutgundampilot@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:20:29 JST Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

     in reply to

     • VaxxSabbath
     • petra
     • mikerotch

     @petra @VaxxSabbath @mikerotch @deprecated_ii I was just lectured because I said we as consumers should be able to expect advancement. Evidently that whole 'march of progress' was a lie all along and we should be content with everlasting stagnation, things DON'T actually have to continue advancing

   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks (washedoutgundampilot@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 14-May-2024 09:32:07 JST Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

     in reply to

     • VaxxSabbath
     • mikerotch

     @VaxxSabbath @mikerotch @deprecated_ii I'll ask around about this, because it touches on some of the chats I've had.

     BIG problem I've heard from 2 smaller aircraft manufacturing managers: Much of their knowledge is utterly lost, irrevocably. This is made much worse than it has to be because of the type certification process.

     Once you get a TC for a design, it's more or less set in stone. It's a grievously expensive and difficult process, in the sense that someone has to pay the bills and get a return on their investment - this process is generally a money loser though, so pretty much nobody wants to actually go through with it. (ICON didn't even get a full cert and they're going to bankruptcy court this month, and all they did was a 2-seat seaplane. Textron did a twin commuter, but I suspect they'll regret it since the twin otter returned, those are some of the more high-profile ones OTOMH)

     That results in everyone building aircraft designs that were drafted in the 60's, on blueprints, with a mountain of institutional knowledge left in employee's heads, and never adequately transferred to paper. For decades, they managed to make it work by digitizing, updating, and teaching the new guys but the guys who learned it all from working up from the bottom run are now retiring (forced out in boeing's case).

     Management has little interest in establishing or codifying knowledge transfer, and even if they DID they can't keep people around long enough for it to be of any use. Even tougher for bigger designs, because they end up subcontracting out and having someone else do modules. (Telling that boeing wants to rejoin with Spirit, who was spun off years ago to "save money". Many of their issues stem from spirit's shoddy workmanship and oversight in the last few years.)

     The real-ish solution under your scheme is to train engineers (which PM's wouldn't approve of but that's a separate thing, what they dislike is that kids are "trained" but ultimately worthless, little experience with IRL mechanic's work so they come up with convoluted, expensive, inefficient systems that are difficult to work on for end users. Add in a 3-year apprenticeship as an AMT and you'd have a solid engineer at the end of his 4-yr), BUT have them create new aircraft from scratch so that the entire process is recorded, captured, and codified from the outset. Then you start the cycle anew.

     Then again, we supposedly did that with the F-22 and it didn't work at all, even WITH orders to keep the tooling and thoroughly document the build to restart the line at will.