JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I cannot begin to count the number of times our Mac Pros have hung up or I have had to shut down programs and relaunch them.
Exactly; in the grand scheme of things a personal computer is appealing commercially only if it sports lots of bells and whistles and doesn't cost a lot, and has only minimal consequences of failure.
Contrast that with a launch-vehicle control computer. It needs no bells or whistles (or even a keyboard, mouse, or monitory), and if it fails there is loss of considerable property, or (in the case of human-rated launch vehicles) loss of life. Hence we tolerate very little failure in those designs and charge you obscene amounts of money to achieve that reliability.
Most non-engineers don't understand what engineering really is. It isn't tinkering with aluminum or resistors or computer programs. Instead it's finding the "good enough" sweet spot so that things can actually be built, function, and aid humanity while failing only in tolerable ways.
Engineers can envision far more failure than they can avoid, or than can be practically avoided. Each additional magnitude of reliability generally comes at a magnitude increase in cost, and generally also has qualitative effects on the common case. This makes it prohibitively difficult or expensive to build, and actually ends up reducing overall reliability because of the burdened common case.
In the case of WTC and a unified model of structural performance, impact analysis, fire propagation analysis, combustible modeling -- it just didn't exist in the 1960s. It doesn't exist now, although we're getting there. You did the best with the tools you had available, and you accepted that there would be many, many things outside your ability to study and quantify, outside your ability to correct and control for, outside your ability to afford, and outside your imagination.
(like two 3/8 inch long, 1/8inch diameter, bolts into a plastic frame will hold a 20 oz battery in place!)
Sounds like a problem gaffer tape was meant to solve.
