![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via JamesAndrix on lesswrong.com, a talk from Adam Savage on his method of problem solving:
Second half is Q&A, which is awesome but mostly unrelated.
Second half is Q&A, which is awesome but mostly unrelated.
Tags:
Now that the election is over, we can get to the important stuff. Why is there a light in the refrigerator but not in the freezer? Submitted By |
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
As an engineer, I would bet on condensation and ice deposition. Unlike in the refrigerator compartment, freezer compartments tend to accumulate water (generally solid) on the interior surfaces. If this water is melted by the heat of the lamp, it can short out the system. (Further, the obvious way of avoiding this problem - having the light behind an insulating shield - fails, because the shield develops ice and obscures the light.) In addition to this problem with the light, the switch that would turn on the light when the freezer opens is vulnerable to icing and the resultant clogging.
A light in the freezer would be handy. Unfortunately, it's not practicable.
Tags:
From ^z – a sampling:
1. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.
6. (Mar's Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.
8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.
9. Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.
13. Design is based on requirements. There's no justification for designing something one bit "better" than the requirements dictate.
16. The previous people who did a similar analysis did not have a direct pipeline to the wisdom of the ages. There is therefore no reason to believe their analysis over yours. There is especially no reason to present their analysis as yours.
19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up.
25. (Bowden's Law) Following a testing failure, it's always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along.
And my favorite:
26. (Montemerlo's Law) Don't do nuthin' dumb.
Here is the canonical list.
1. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.
6. (Mar's Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.
8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.
9. Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.
13. Design is based on requirements. There's no justification for designing something one bit "better" than the requirements dictate.
16. The previous people who did a similar analysis did not have a direct pipeline to the wisdom of the ages. There is therefore no reason to believe their analysis over yours. There is especially no reason to present their analysis as yours.
19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up.
25. (Bowden's Law) Following a testing failure, it's always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along.
And my favorite:
26. (Montemerlo's Law) Don't do nuthin' dumb.
Here is the canonical list.
Tags: