Adam, Brian, and Jeff discuss where the podcast should venture during its second hundred episodes.
Adam claims to be better at long term than short-term planning.
Listener feedback is encouraged as we try to sort out what topics to cover in upcoming episodes.
Tutorial episodes (for example, Nuts and Bolts) seem well-received, but require substantial advance planning. Additionally, there are limits to how “deep” we can dive with an audio podcast.
Podcasts that regularly dive into technical subjects include Pragmatic and Security Now.
Jeff would like to see a steady stream of working engineers appear on the podcast during coming years.
“War stories” have benefited Brian during the course of his career.
Brian suggests using LinkedIn to reach potential guests for future episodes.
A possible new feature for the podcast would be coverage of current engineering events; say, the recent landing of the Blue Origin rocket.
One of the classic television “debate” shows was CNN’s Crossfire, which premiered in 1982.
While there are only 8 engineers in the current US Congress, there are 202 lawyers among the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators that make up that legislative body.
Jeff acknowledges his home state once came close to passing a law that would redefine the irrational number pi as being 3.2.
Adam notes that the degree of curvature is frequently used in civil engineering.
Vanity publishing has been around for many years, although it is much easier to be self-published these days.
We discuss a recent episode of The Amp Hour podcast where Chris and Dave answered live questions.
Brian insists we should avoid participating in “Hangout-a-thons.”
In recent episodes there hasn’t been much discussion of the trend toward shorter employment periods for engineers; Jeff wonders if this could provide an area of focus in the future.
This episode of The Engineering Commons finds the gang discussing how engineers are perceived by those outside the engineering field.
Jeff accidentally reveals the plot of a well-known fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin, while sharing a childhood recollection.
At the end of 1981, when Jeff graduated from college, inflation in the U.S. was around 10%, six-month certificates of deposit (CDs) were paying 13.1% interest, and 30-year mortgages carried a hefty 17% interest rate. He was happy to find a job (at any salary).
Between 1994 and the top of the dot-com bubble, Brian opines, it was a prevalent attitude that an engineering career could lead to significant wealth.
As of 2006, a third of S&P 500 CEOs had undergraduate engineering degrees, says Business Insider.
Jeff remembers working with secretaries who would type his hand-written memos onto company letterhead using a IBM Selectric typewriter.
As recently as 2011, there was but one engineer in the US Congress. However, there are currently seven engineers in the House of Representatives, and one engineer in the Senate (says a Congressional Research Service report).
We discuss whether engineers really are a “different breed.”
Carmen thinks the TV series Silicon Valley does a reasonable job of portraying engineers.
Episode 40 of this podcast, titled “Engineering Fiction,” discussed how engineers are depicted in today’s mass media.
It turns out that Bill Nye (the Science Guy), is a Mechanical Engineer who used to work for Boeing.
A common myth is that engineering school is difficult; in fact, it’s brutal.
Brian notes the difference in permanence between electrical and civil engineering projects.
A healthy number of engineering students graduate with the misconception that engineers work alone and need not follow directions.
A Mythbusters episode (#222) demonstrated that unassigned seating results in the fastest boarding time for a passenger plane, but also generates the least satisfaction among passengers.
With business casual attire the current norm, engineers don’t have to worry very often about the social significant of wearing a “red power tie.”
Carmen notes that our past episodes with Cherish Bauer-Reich and Sophi Kravitz may shed some light on additional stereotypes encountered by women entering the engineering field.
Brian, Carmen and Jeff discuss the role of details in engineering projects, and how one goes about evaluating, managing, sharing, and documenting critical minutia.
In the introduction, Jeff misses the detail that this podcast is published in November, not October.
Carmen doesn’t mind sweating the details, but reviewing documentation for typographical errors is not his favorite task.
We continue to look for guest and topic suggestions from our listeners, so feel free to send us a note with your ideas.
A previous guest, James Trevelyan, has written about the value of engineers, and how uncertainty reduction is an important contribution of the engineering profession.
Brian relates a recent situation in which he burned through many hours trying to uncover a programming detail buried in the documentation.
Electronic circuits can behave badly in “high EMI” environments, where EMI stands for “electromagnetic interference.”
Jeff justifies his “pi multiplier” concept (see this podcast’s first episode) with the “cone of uncertainty” used by software developers.
It’s Brian’s opinion that engineers often fail to utilize the formal methods found in other professions when managing a multitude of critical details.
Jeff claims that engineering standards ease the burden of dealing with frequently encountered details.
Of course, as Carmen observes, the problem sometimes lies in choosing the “right” standard.
Searching a large solution space for potential design details can be a frustratingly slow process, says Jeff.
Brian always tries to have a backup plan, so he is not “checkmated” by a single detail.
The amount of documentation appropriate for each detail seems related to the detail’s expected and potential costs.
Creating a documentation hierarchy can provide needed information without overwhelming customers, notes Carmen.
Humans quickly become inured to a surplus of details (or warnings).
Brian has found modularization (it’s really a word!) to be a good means for keeping details from interfering with one another during the development process.
Adam, Brian, and Jeff discuss where the podcast should venture during its second hundred episodes.
