Just to add, the primary failure mode of critical jet engine components is fatigue. To see, and thus learn, from fatigue failures in the field you need thousands of components flying thousands of hours, this takes years or decades. And to learn from this in a way that let's you improve design you first have to get past manufacturing and maintenance induced issues. Which is to say, it takes time to get good at jet engines, on the order of decades when you are talking about the tightest margin sector of the field (big commercial engines).
It's kinda opposite in a way. More countries make military engines than commercial engines because military engines don't have to worry as much about efficiency, pollution, sound, and most importantly cost.
But unless you massively subsidize a company "cough Rolls Royce cough" then you can't compete at all with a generation or two behind commercial jet engine tech.
I strongly believe college is oversold but mostly because kids are told they just need to get "any degree", which is a blatant lie. It can totally be worth it if you are objectively looking at what outcomes a specific degree will get you.
But a big reason people only stay two years because we have had decades of companies gutting every incentive to stay somewhere longterm.
Whether or not companies should or shouldn't in their particular case is hard to answer generally. I am in an adjacent field to software and work on products that have lifetimes measured in decades. In that area short term thinking has been incredibly detrimental to organizations. I would also think investing in educating people that are going to work in an industry or are working in an industry will be a net positive to that industry. That is more a vibe based assertion than fact based though.
- Longtime trends of companies trying to externalize training costs.
- Avoiding hiring in general due to uncertainty in the economy.
- Companies dumping tons of money into AI thus having to cut money from other places, particularly ones that don't add much value in the quarter (internships).
No, the average worker does not live to work. The average shareholder and executive lives to extract every ounce of work possible out of the average workers.
1. AI is developed to be smart enough to actual replace people, destroying the labor force and immensely concentrating power.
This seems like bs hyperbole but I am not an expert.
2. AI turns out to be a bubble of false promises and hype, bursts, and takes the stock market and economy with it.
I thought this was the most likely but I keep not hearing popping, so maybe the it's:
3. AI continues to be a tool that can substantially increase productivity in some areas and cause huge societal changes in others. The AI companies keep the hype train going or maybe it tapers off over time until talk meets reality but "real" AI never shows up and the bubble never pops because it's not one. Eventually there is 0-3 new FAANG companies with untouchable control of a tech we increasingly have to use to stay relevant.
Even if we avoid option 1 and 2, 3 doesn't exactly bode well either.
It's funny that this is a question when every college STEM class is taught by people who have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with being able to teach effectively.
When you underpay teachers, people who hate teaching, and hate being teachers, will become teachers because all the people that had better options did something else.
Maybe a better way to say it would be, no one is talking to AI that isn't on company serves, managed by that company personnel.
My overall point being, no one is submitting design files to ChatGPT for analysis or emailing their friends in China test reports to get a second opinion on the experimental results.
The problem with this is gmaps. There is no alternative to it and by the nature of it knowing your location it removes anonymity. I would buy, or even pay a monthly fee, for something that is 75% as good as gmaps but respects your privacy but there is nothing out there I have found.
No one is "corresponding" trade secrets outside of their company. I recommend reading up on ITAR and the resulting culture it has created around aerospace info.