I think while these kinds of projects are cool, but I think the point of my parent comment is that volume matters. If you can do something, its interesting and great for bragging rights, but making and operating thousands of airframes (especially considering the breakneck speed with which technology evolved, timeframes were very compressed!).

While the SR71 was more capable than the MIG, if the Air Force would've wanted to build a thousand of those in 5 years, it would've been impossible, not to mention the maintenance burden.

So while the planes you mentioned might've been more capable, in a real conflict they wouldn't have mattered much, as they could not have sustained a volume of strikes to be relevant.

Interesting how quality and quantity have changed over the years: in WW2, giant factories pumped out airplanes on endless production lines by the tens of thousands, yet those planes couldn't drop bombs accurately.

In contrast, 4th gen fighters were made in still significant volumes, and their smart bombs could hit a target accurately enough so that a hundred pound bomb can do the job you would need a WW2 B-29 to drop its entire payload for.

I think that was a peak in quality X quantity in aviation.

Yes, modern jets have even more tech, and stealth and stuff, but their complexity and and difficulty of manufacture doesn't offset the drop in volume.

So quality went up, but quantity went way down, and as a result their total effectiveness is less than the generation they're supposed to replace.

Cool observation, might be more to it than I would like to admit. Interestingly, most of the CEOs of the biggest tech companies are not particularly tall (with the notable exception of Musk and late Steve Jobs) were exceptionally tall.

I wonder if this reflects on organizational culture, with firms being led by 'alpha males' being more authoritarian, and prone to these personality cults, where the boss has this aura of ineffable leader.

I have worked at these places, and there's no wonder nerds hate these. Since nerds tend to be on the less assertive, more thoughtful side (even if physically speaking they wouldn't need to be), and they're the only ones who can figure out hard problems, the ones behaving assertively, as well as being invested in politics and status games tend to come out on top.

Which makes technical work be seen as an inherently 'low status' thing, where the 'beta' works and the 'alpha' swoops in to claim the prize. This attitude alienates nerds, as they feel rightly exploited and unrewarded, and they move on to somewhere else, and suddenly these domineering people find themselves without anyone competent to do the actual work.

Which usually sets these orgs on a path to slow decline, which can go on forever. I feel like most orgs are like this.

Considering many orgs understand this on a deep level, they try to prevent technical folks being sidelined, by oversized egos, which, while good in intent, often lead to these same alphas use these new tools they're given, and hide behind doublespeak, and process, democratic gerrymandering, shutting down nerds complaining about tech debt by accusing them of 'not being team players' or quietly turning the less invested, but politically savvy members of the team against the nerd arguing for a good solution, by accusing him of going against group consensus to feed his own ego.

I think most 'attractive' people put effort into their appearances, which might appeal to management types who evaluate work performance. Also, imo the best way to get a management position in my experience isn't to work hard, or be knowledgeable, but to be the least objectionable pick.

This varies with country/company, with Euros usually being appearance focused, but in US companies, it's dudes in crumpled T-shirts all the way to the top (in engineering).

Seriously, it's so entertaining to sit in on an important meeting with a US vendor which looks like a college dorm party with an impeccably dressed guy or lady (from sales and/or management) who sticks out like a sore thumb.

Compliance is crazy sucky - I remember there being a case when one of our vendors was harvesting data like crazy, and we went after them. It was grossly in violation of GDPR, like as bad as it could get.

When we reached out to them, they showed us a cert about how they were GDPR compliant, issued by a huge brand-name consulting firm.

In the paper they said they implemented certain standard-mandated cryptographic measures to 'anonymize' the data. Thing is, they implemented them wrong on purpose, so that they could actually identify users by inverting hashes with a rainbow table.

There was a lot of BS legal reasoning in there but the bigname firm signed off on it. Oh and at the bottom, it had a provision, that if the company were to be sued for breach of GDPR, the consluting firm would not be liable any way.

But this was good enough for tons of companies and govt agencies to just use that software.

So that's what compliance certs get you.