where on earth are the management consultancies supposed to steal their "ideas" from to generate new fads now. I'm for sure none of them have had an original thought of their own.
Not sure if this is for or against, but this is a good opportunity to argument why concepts developed “in humanities” are valuable (in case if it’s not obvious :D )
Maslows hierarchy of needs, while possibly inaccurate, is a very usefull model and concept to have. As our understanding of human condition improves, we need specific terms to understand them.
Imagine is there was no word for love or hunger… for aristicracy or oligarchy… etc.
Accuracy and precision is useful. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs is neither, I question how useful it truly is. At best then, it would a narrative device to tell a persuasive story, but the fact that it has no factual basis means you can twist it to tell whatever story you want.
This is a problem endemic to social sciences due to the replication crisis. Lots of social scientists in this article are saying that their field is important to the economy, but given they mainly produce results that don't replicate (~30% replicate last I checked), maybe they should focus on improving that so their ROI is actually compelling.
Funny that you should say that. It's not just the social sciences that are having a replication crisis. [1] So this appears to be some sort of broad social problem that we don't totally understand. Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out.
Social sciences are by far the worst offenders, with sociology right at the bottom at ~30% replication rate.
> Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out.
No, we need people who understand robust quantitative analysis and empirical methodologies. Sociologists are clearly not them. Open science and preregistration initiatives help a lot, but I should note that social sciences were also the most vociferous objectors to such changes.
Did you look at the article I linked? Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so.
Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question for physics or chemistry.
> Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so.
Yes, I'm aware of the reproducibility numbers, that's why I said social science was the absolute worst, by far. Despite only 50% of medical papers replicating, they've still provided significant improvements over the past few decades. Ditto with chemistry.
The same cannot be said for sociology and psychology. CBT is still the tool with the best track record and that was created in the 1960s. The robust, replicated results from sociology since the 1980s have modest effect sizes and are basically things we already knew, eg. that social isolation is not good, and that social norms influence people's behaviour.
> Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question of physics or chemistry.
Neither is it a question of sociology or psychology. Science is a systematic, self-correcting process that should be agnostic to any factors, including human fallibility, conflicts of interest, AI generated nonsense, etc.
That's one way to look at science although it's a bit religious for my tastes. But it if were fully self-correcting, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Understanding why it isn't and how it fix it are social science problems.
CEO's have a "replication crisis" and they join and leave companies on huge salary and equity packages having totally failed to turn around or deliver the growth they were hired for. The fact that they did it in one place is no guarantee they can "reproduce" their first success and chance has more of a role than anybody will admit.
They're gonna steal from optimization. Are we going with an explore vs exploit strategy? We need to get this project into the annealing stage and slow down on big changes. What's the shortest path to an MVP. We need to branch and bound on different features in the prototype.
You have a good point in that it was supposed to replace all kinds of aircraft. That was kind of its thing.
“ intended to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft …”
One aircraft for the navy, marines and air force would save money was the thinking I imagine.
I remember the competition for the design many year ago (there was a Nova tv program) but haven’t been following too closely but it’s had issues filling all the roles.
It's a little too late for that. The JSF program probably should have been cancelled or completely restructured circa 1996. But now there's no remaining alternative. The inventory of legacy AV-8, F-16, and A-10 aircraft are going to be retired no matter what because they're literally falling apart and it's impossible to keep extending their service lives.
Wrong. The current unit cost for an F-35B is about $109M while an F/A-18E/F is about $55M. That's a difference of 2×, not 5×. And more importantly, the F/A-18 can't operate from amphibious ships to support Marine Corps ground forces. If it can't accomplish the required mission then the cost is moot.
It's extremely practical and a good aircraft. Not to mention cheap, now that the development costs are paid for.
There is no aircraft in history that did not have hiccups during procurement. Even "ol reliable" platforms like the Blackhawk or the F-16 had much worse reputations when they were first introduced.
see Apple's 14 billion tax troubles in Ireland. For years these companies have been using the European operations as part of the tax avoidance schemes.
Don't mess with the Flemish has been good advice for 600 of the last thousand years.
