It wasn't communicated properly as it says in the story. It is typical engineer reaction to question the reading comprehension ability of the readers.

▲

dhdjsjfjejd 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you can't consume the PhD-level analysis that you requested because you only have a high school reading level, despite having been tasked with safely operating what was arguably the most technically complicated piece of technology in existence at the time, then there's really no other excuse for that level of incompetence.

▲

moron4hire 8 days ago | parent [-]

Let's presume you are correct. The Boeing engineers who made this slide were geniuses. The NASA managers consuming it were dullards. If the Boeing engineers were so smart, why didn't they write for their audience?

I am consistently ranked as both one of the best engineers in my company and one of the best communicators. I would never make a slide like that for any audience. It's shit writing for non-engineers and it's shit writing for engineers, too.

You have got to get over whatever this hangup is about "PhD level analysis". That phrase doesn't mean anything.

	▲	dhdjsjfjejd 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not arguing that it was a good slide: just extremely average in the context that it was created. If there was a problem with communication, then it was solely on the reader for not being fluent in their own field. The engineers were presenting a nuanced view of their data, which went above the heads of the NASA personnel who were evidently only capable of interpreting a simple "yes or no" answer.

▲

8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]