Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[DGuller]

To be devil's advocate, this kind of conflict usually goes both ways,

Sure. In an actual workplace where perfect knowledge remains a platonic ideal, and where imperfect engineers and workers coexist, it may be worth it to treat people with respect, dignity and humility.

I would say that even in a workplace with perfect engineers and workers, you should treat people with respect, dignity, and humility.  I generally wouldn't say such a thing, though, not because it's not true, but because it's just a platitude.

[Oexmelin]

Considering that there exists a grievance that engineers tend to look down upon workers, which is what I was commenting on, it may be a platitude that bears repeating. I'm sure there exists a theoretical workplace where your own remark about perfect knowledge is of tremendous use, and isn't just some pedantic self-jerk. 

Now that this has been said, and since I am increasingly finding you quite condescending and disagreeable, I'll wish you good life, and will be ignoring you from now on.

[Syt]

[DGuller]

Considering that there exists a grievance that engineers tend to look down upon workers, which is what I was commenting on, it may be a platitude that bears repeating. I'm sure there exists a theoretical workplace where your own remark about perfect knowledge is of tremendous use, and isn't just some pedantic self-jerk. 

I think it actually has a lot of use in understanding the changing labor dynamics, and how they're going to continue to change.  The Internet in particular has shifted the balance from know-how to knowledge. 

It used to be that the argument of the type "Joe has been selling Buicks for 40 years, he knows what engine options they come with better than anyone" would carry a lot of weight.  Obviously Joe could be going senile after his 40 years of selling Buicks, but absent a better source his know-how from work experience had some value. 

Now any 10-year old kid can just google everything there is to know about Buicks, and if google disagrees with Joe, it's probably because Joe got it wrong.  The value of the one asset that "unskilled labor" could accumulate with experience in the past has been greatly eroded by Internet, where a single YouTube video can cancel out the know-how from experience of millions of people.

[The Brain]

In the olden days when engineers wore suits and workers overalls, engineers had fancy offices in a separate building from the facility, and everyone wasn't on a first name basis, then the engineer/worker conflict was more real. These days not so much.

[The Larch]

Going back to the topic of ancient infrastructure, an argument I heard on a podcast (talking mostly about buildings, rather than roads or other structures) is that back then stuff would be over-designed and over-engineered as much as possible in order to make sure that it'd stand the test of time, as architects and engineers would have no way to test and calculate the stress that their works would have to withstand so they'd make them as strong as possible no matter what, even more when we're dealing with high importance projects that might have gone down already (for instance, we marvel at the current Pantheon in Rome, but the building that has survived is actually the third one, as the first two burned down).

This is coupled by survivor bias, as the buildings we can currently see are the ones that, one way or the other, made it to the present day. We don't see as much the crappy dwelings of the urban underclass that were not built with as much care, effort and resources as the big projects.

[crazy canuck]

Considering that there exists a grievance that engineers tend to look down upon workers, which is what I was commenting on, it may be a platitude that bears repeating. I'm sure there exists a theoretical workplace where your own remark about perfect knowledge is of tremendous use, and isn't just some pedantic self-jerk. 

Not just engineer types.  A main message I give to our new lawyers is to listen to their legal assistants and firm staff - they will teach you how to manage your practice and it is best to work in collaboration with them.  Those who embrace that message tend to work out very well.  Those who don't tend leave the firm fairly quickly.

[Malthus]

Going back to the topic of ancient infrastructure, an argument I heard on a podcast (talking mostly about buildings, rather than roads or other structures) is that back then stuff would be over-designed and over-engineered as much as possible in order to make sure that it'd stand the test of time, as architects and engineers would have no way to test and calculate the stress that their works would have to withstand so they'd make them as strong as possible no matter what, even more when we're dealing with high importance projects that might have gone down already (for instance, we marvel at the current Pantheon in Rome, but the building that has survived is actually the third one, as the first two burned down).

This is coupled by survivor bias, as the buildings we can currently see are the ones that, one way or the other, made it to the present day. We don't see as much the crappy dwelings of the urban underclass that were not built with as much care, effort and resources as the big projects.

It's a fair point - also, major buildings and infrastructure projects in Rome in particular were generally explicitly seen as creating a legacy for the Roman who put up or had raised the cash, or under whose leadership the thing was built: for roads, the "Appian Way", for example, after Appius Claudius Caecus. They were intended as part of someone's personal political legacy, so that person had a motive to ensure the thing would be around forever, even if it made more sense from a purely utilitarian point of view that it be less durable.   

[The Brain]

What would a more rational level of engineering for a Roman road look like?

[Valmy]

I mean an engineering degree is just a bachelor's degree. Hardly some fancy elitist thing. Are they demanding everything be designed intuitively by high school dropouts?

I think you underestimate how fancy, and elite, a university diploma can be to someone who never completed high school. What many workers often ask is that their experience is considered, rather than being brushed aside, or belittled because of their status as "high school dropout". 

Oh was that posted by a worker on road construction projects? My apologies. I thought that was just another one of Syt's asshole relatives declaring their superiority to everybody on the entire planet who is not in their little clique who have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

I would have to have some serious brain damage to belittle electricians and line workers and other show work in my field on the lower levels, that is some serious work and I aspired to be them for many years before realizing I was going to have to spend many years suffering trying to get a very difficult degree while working full time and caring for small children. I probably destroyed my health and shortened my life about ten years in the effort just because I so passionately wanted to contribute in this field. I wish I could have been one of those workers it just wasn't my skill set. But likewise I don't really want to see myself and my efforts belittled either.

[Razgovory]

Going back to the topic of ancient infrastructure, an argument I heard on a podcast (talking mostly about buildings, rather than roads or other structures) is that back then stuff would be over-designed and over-engineered as much as possible in order to make sure that it'd stand the test of time, as architects and engineers would have no way to test and calculate the stress that their works would have to withstand so they'd make them as strong as possible no matter what, even more when we're dealing with high importance projects that might have gone down already (for instance, we marvel at the current Pantheon in Rome, but the building that has survived is actually the third one, as the first two burned down).

This is coupled by survivor bias, as the buildings we can currently see are the ones that, one way or the other, made it to the present day. We don't see as much the crappy dwelings of the urban underclass that were not built with as much care, effort and resources as the big projects.

It's a fair point - also, major buildings and infrastructure projects in Rome in particular were generally explicitly seen as creating a legacy for the Roman who put up or had raised the cash, or under whose leadership the thing was built: for roads, the "Appian Way", for example, after Appius Claudius Caecus. They were intended as part of someone's personal political legacy, so that person had a motive to ensure the thing would be around forever, even if it made more sense from a purely utilitarian point of view that it be less durable.

Well, the Appian way has been restored and maintained since the 19th century.  That might have helped its appearance.  Roads that haven't been restored don't look as nice.

This road was recently excavated in Israel.  It's not nearly as impressive.

[Malthus]

Fair enough. Lots of famous bits of Roman infrastructure have been repeatedly restored over the centuries. Though others have been looted for building materials. Still, many have had remarkable longevity.

One other reason Roman stuff often lasted so long is that the Romans used a very durable type of concrete, made with volcanic ash, that resists cracking and spreading - used for example in the dome of the Pantheon.

[Valmy]

Fair enough. Lots of famous bits of Roman infrastructure have been repeatedly restored over the centuries. Though others have been looted for building materials. Still, many have had remarkable longevity.

One other reason Roman stuff often lasted so long is that the Romans used a very durable type of concrete, made with volcanic ash, that resists cracking and spreading - used for example in the dome of the Pantheon.

Was that only used for special projects? Or is volcanic ash a readily available item?

[Malthus]

Fair enough. Lots of famous bits of Roman infrastructure have been repeatedly restored over the centuries. Though others have been looted for building materials. Still, many have had remarkable longevity.

One other reason Roman stuff often lasted so long is that the Romans used a very durable type of concrete, made with volcanic ash, that resists cracking and spreading - used for example in the dome of the Pantheon.

Was that only used for special projects? Or is volcanic ash a readily available item?

Apparently it was in 'widespread' use.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

Not only in Rome or Italy itself - one of the biggest uses was in the harbour of Ceaserea in what is now Israel. Among other things, this type of concrete can set underwater.

[Zoupa]

There's a bridge in my village back in France that saw over 2000 years of uninterrupted use, including for cars and trucks. Built in 3 BC, bypassed in 2005. Now it's only accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Not adding anything to the road discussion I know, but I just found it cool.