Classic.

Fictional employee. Fictional scenario. But you still assume that the employee isn't smart enough to know why bolts are different sizes and whether a bigger bolt could work in the place of the smaller bolts.

You assume you know more about this fictional car than the fictional employee actually (um, I mean fictionally) building it.

You should apply for management.

There's really no reason to think the person turning the bolt knows what size the bolt needs to be. It isn't insulting to the employee, it just isn't there job. In the same way a web dev doesn't know how docker works, or how their OS's memory allocate works, or how a C programmer doesn't know how the hardware works, or how an EE can't write readable code to save their life.

> In the same way a web dev doesn't know how docker works

Reductively it's CoW snapshots + chroot.

Guess I need to find a new job.

Containers and a layered file system is closer to the mark

f u l l s t a c k

Two weeks ago I was writing a UI in React. Last week I was writing a Dockerfile. This week I'm building a circuit with a microcontroller.

People don't have to hyper-specialize to one specific role.

Weird flex, but okay.

How's that weird? It is perfect anecdotal counter-evidence to the claim it's responding to.

I interpreted the original claim as being:

> There's really no reason to think the person turning the bolt necessarily knows what size the bolt needs to be.

and also steel-manned the final sentence like this:

> In the same way a web dev doesn't need to know how docker works

As such, the (claimed) existence of one person who regularly uses very different skills doesn't disprove what I think jacobsenscott was trying to say.

Sure, but there's no reason to believe the person turning the bolt necessarily doesn't know what size it needs to be.

Example using the same logic as the post we're discussing: Someone flips a coin in another room. It doesn't necessarily have to be heads, so we should assume it's tails.

I thought this was cool.

> But you still assume that the employee isn't smart enough to know why bolts are different sizes and whether a bigger bolt could work in the place of the smaller bolts.

It sounds like you are not familiar with this disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

There may be a very good reason things are the way they are.

And apparently you a not familiar with what a cargo cult is?

Uh... what? The comment I replied to argued that a random employee might understand why a particular bolt was chosen. The walkway collapse is literally about bolts/nuts being changed around. That design change by a third party resulted in a disaster that killed over 100 people... Seems like appropriate evidence that a line worker would not actually understand design details. That's not to say they couldn't make a suggestion and feedback their experience. Of course they should do that.

You can have the same hexagon head size for different thread diameters within the limits of what is silly.

While that may be true, it is equally possible that the engineer did engineer thing with out giving a crap about the assembly thing, this happens alot...