This is an LLM-written article. It also doesn't say anything. I get it that it's a cue for us to reminisce about childhood and say that LEGO isn't what it used to be, but we're being played for clicks. Open the article and look for a single statement that actually tells us something meaningful. It's just a sequence of impressively-sounding factoids like this:

> A 2x2 brick can withstand over 4,000 Newtons of force, which lets children build tall structures.

> But in an assembly system like LEGO's, small errors accumulate. Stack ten bricks end-to-end and the cumulative tolerance is ten times larger. This is why LEGO models larger than 1 meter become difficult to build

> The lesson isn't that everyone should match LEGO's tolerances. It's to understand what your product actually requires, then build your manufacturing system to deliver that at the scale and cost your business model demands.

I know I'm tilting at windmills, but come on.

I agree, it doesn't say a lot. It also very confidently specifies a series of tolerances with no citations.

Lego does indeed have very tight tolerance, but I don't know if the numbers are in the public domain.

I too hate it when my kids apply 4 kN of force to off-brand construction bricks and they turn to ABS paste. Only LEGO (R) for my spawn!

[dead]