• RattlerSix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    It makes sense for certifying torque specs. Every time the wrench tightens a bolt, it can tell the network and it can be certified.

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      With the added bonus of all the data potentially being compromised, specs modified, torque intentionally wrong, thereby invalidating every certificate.

      Remember when skilled workers were competent, had the time to do their jobs properly, and could write shit down?

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Gotta call bullshit here.

        Skilled workers make mistakes. Give them all the time in the world and they will still make mistakes because they are human. The trick is to give them feedback loops, as short as possible, so they can recognize their mistakes. This should be part of process controls based on risk.

        Don’t get me wrong, I would not want to validate this network wrench solution. There is a fairly narrow band where it makes sense to me which would require a fair amount of DFM (design the assembly to have unique bolt heads for each torque setting etc). But when you are making things that people rely on for their life… You have to have layered systems and these are a legitimate layer.