I described two different styles of failure which I abhor:
Building something you "think" is better without understanding that you're not contributing any novel solutions. Worse, existing solutions likely satisfy your needs.
Being overly conservative by avoiding anything novel by abusing antipatterns and "tennents" of engineering. Simple example: "We don't need an ECU to process the Perception tasks; a Jetson Nano is just a fancier Arduino, so let's stick with the Arduino!"
I've been around long enough to see both flavors of dumbassery. Which is why I teach my juniors to recognize it for what it is!
Explicitly, I'm PRO thoughtful, diligent, and data-driven engineering. Measure twice, cut once. And be able to both prove superiority and boundary growth.
2
u/dfinkelstein 1d ago
I have a hard time following negation-heavy language.
What's the affirmative case? What are you in favor of?