OK, but isn’t the key take-away from the Challenger disaster all about the consequence of organizational dysfunction and fear of speaking up?
It wasn’t really a “design flaw” or “weak link” as much as it was management disregarding the warnings of engineering staff. The cold temperature limitation was known in advance by the Morton Thiokol engineers but their management refused to relay the warnings of engineering to NASA and NASA was under pressure to fly. IMHO this was a failure of multiple, mostly organizational, systems rather than “one weak link”.
The o-ring was still the weak link, a small part that decision makers assumed was insignificant whose failure caused the complete destruction of a massive system and tragic deaths. The organizational failures are just why the weak link wasn't addressed. We can say with hindsight that things should have been better communicated and the warnings should have been heeded, but the fact is they were dealing with a complex system where the risk was sufficiently non-obvious that they could disregard the warnings.
Likely yes, because NASA and other agencies were able to portray the incident as an O-ring failure. It was in fact just that management was indifferent to the risk to the astronauts on board. The only individual who accurately reported on the disaster was Feynman.
Completely unrelated. Laffer curve is total tax returns as a function of tax rate (usually used to show that at some point T = t*Y(t), where t is the rate and Y is the taxe base, dT/dt < 0).
This is about how Y works, not as a function of t but of, well, everything else.
dead simple: (AI) automation gains can't be modeled via linear task-savings due to "the structure of bottlenecks and how automation reshapes worker time around them"
Nothing in the article about targeting the rate-limiting factors.
And on the first line of the first page, this gem of gratitude: "We thank Refine.ink, ChatGPT 5.2 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.5 for research assistance"
And on this government-sponsored paper, a warning that copying ANY portion of the text REQUIRES I accompany it with full credit, including the copyright notice, so that quote above puts me into noncompliance.
What is an O-ring in this situation? I was expecting an article on sealing but this has me confused.
It's referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_deve...
The name is a reference to the Challenger disaster, which was caused by a failure of actual sealing O-rings, but the theory itself is abstract.
Basically, it's modeling complex production chains where the quality of the "weakest link" is the limiting factor of the quality of the whole process.
OK, but isn’t the key take-away from the Challenger disaster all about the consequence of organizational dysfunction and fear of speaking up?
It wasn’t really a “design flaw” or “weak link” as much as it was management disregarding the warnings of engineering staff. The cold temperature limitation was known in advance by the Morton Thiokol engineers but their management refused to relay the warnings of engineering to NASA and NASA was under pressure to fly. IMHO this was a failure of multiple, mostly organizational, systems rather than “one weak link”.
Did the economists mis-name their own theory?
The o-ring was still the weak link, a small part that decision makers assumed was insignificant whose failure caused the complete destruction of a massive system and tragic deaths. The organizational failures are just why the weak link wasn't addressed. We can say with hindsight that things should have been better communicated and the warnings should have been heeded, but the fact is they were dealing with a complex system where the risk was sufficiently non-obvious that they could disregard the warnings.
Likely yes, because NASA and other agencies were able to portray the incident as an O-ring failure. It was in fact just that management was indifferent to the risk to the astronauts on board. The only individual who accurately reported on the disaster was Feynman.
So a multivariate Laffer curve?
Completely unrelated. Laffer curve is total tax returns as a function of tax rate (usually used to show that at some point T = t*Y(t), where t is the rate and Y is the taxe base, dT/dt < 0).
This is about how Y works, not as a function of t but of, well, everything else.
It's a reference to a model of growth that in itself is a reference to the challenger disaster. Basically something like a "weakest link" theory of growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_deve...
Was surprised to see this here; i think it is a good model for thinking about tech productivity
dead simple: (AI) automation gains can't be modeled via linear task-savings due to "the structure of bottlenecks and how automation reshapes worker time around them"
Nothing in the article about targeting the rate-limiting factors.
And on the first line of the first page, this gem of gratitude: "We thank Refine.ink, ChatGPT 5.2 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.5 for research assistance"
And on this government-sponsored paper, a warning that copying ANY portion of the text REQUIRES I accompany it with full credit, including the copyright notice, so that quote above puts me into noncompliance.