Quote:
Originally Posted by wireties
I always evaluate all the options. I just don't take the risk of building something I might not get paid for. I make SURE the customer will accept and pay for my solution (the equivalent here is the GDC and the inspectors). And if the customer is not wise enough to know it will not work, I still will NOT build it because I want the customer to return.
|
You mean... like asking in Q&A what the definition of bridge is? Seems to me that was a pretty clear "is this a legitimate solution?". You see, unlike the real world the GDC refuses to answer questions about particular solutions. So I could not ask "Will a robot that is capable of going under the bridge and being fully supported by the plate underneath it be considered supported by the bridge?" We would have gotten back that they don't answer questions about specific designs.
My biggest question is, why on earth do we keep having Q&A answers and Team Updates being at odds with each other? Why not merely answer in the Q&A that the bridge is defined as the parts X,Y,Z from the drawing 123 and then follow that up with updating the manual to state that? I guess that is what I'm most angry about.
That being said, I am in the industry of getting paid to find the interesting solutions to problems. It is my job to think of different ways of doing things.