[0xEF]

> Any manufacturing process is subject to quality controls.

A few things on this illusion:

* Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns

* QA workers are often pressured to let small things fly and cave easily because they simply do not get paid enough to care and know they won't win that fight unless their employer's product causes some major catastrophe that costs lives

* Most common goods and infrastructure are built by the lowest bidder with the cheapest materials using underpaid labor, so as for "quality" we're already starting at the bottom.

There is this notion that because things like ISO and QC standards exist, people follow them. The enforcement of quality is weak and the reach of any enforcing bodies is extremely short when pushed up against the wall by the teams of lawyers afforded to companies like Boeing or Stellantis.

I see it too regularly at my job to not call out this idea that quality control is anything but smoke and mirrors, deployed with minimal effort and maximum reluctance. Hell, it's arguably the reason why I have a job since about 75% of the machines I walk in their doors to fix broke because they were improperly maintained, poorly implemented or sabotaged by an inept operator. It leaves me embittered, to be honest, because it doesn't have to be this way and the only reason why it is boils down to greed and mismanagement.

[michaelt]

> Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns

Perhaps this is industry dependent?

In my country’s automotive industry, quality control standards have risen a lot in the past few decades. These days consumers expect the doors and sunroof not to leak, no rust even after 15 years being kept outdoors, and the engine to start first time even after two weeks in an airport carpark.

How is this achieved? Lots of careful quality checking.

[0xEF]

That's great! What country are you in?

For context, I am in the US and in a position to see what goes on behind the scenes in most of the major auto-maker factories and some aerospace, but that's about as far as I can talk about it, since some of them are DoD contracters.

Quality Control is a valuable tool when deployed correctly and, itself, monitored for consistency and areas where improvement can happen. There is what I consider a limp-wristed effort to improve QC in the US, but in the end, it's really about checking some bureaucratic box as opposed to actually making better product, although sometimes we get lucky and the two align.

[idiotsecant]

You don't work in a job with real QC. Do some pharma work and then get back to me.

[0xEF]

Your comment is adversarial for no reason. "Real" QC? I work for people who make vehicles on the ground and in the air that hold passengers expecting to be delivered safely. Some of them even make parts for very large structures that are expected to remain standing when the wind blows too hard or the ground shakes too much. Let's talk about "real" QC and these other imagined types that must exist to you.

Can you define the differences between "real" QC and other versions? Does this imply a "fake" QC? Does that mean that our auto and aerospace manufacturers can't hold themselves to the same quality standards as Big Pharma, since both are ultimately trying to achieve the same goal in avoiding the litigation that comes with putting your customers at risk?

Let's not pretend that pharma co's have never side-stepped regulation or made decisions that put swaths of the population in a position to harm themselves.

My argument was dispelling the general idea that just because rules are in place, they are being followed. Believe me, I'd love to live in that world, but have seen little evidence that we do.

[meroes]

I had to scroll back to see if the same poster calling OP adversarial was GP. And it was.

Your > * Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns*

set the adversarial bar, and OP was just countering in kind.

[garblegarble]

Just a reader of this thread, but that wasn't my take on it. The text you quoted was, I think, an overgeneralisation (there are certainly manufacturers who perform above the baseline standards), but I don't think it was worded adversarially? It then provided some more information (some of which I have heard from others in the industry, especially around QA being pressured to pass defective items).

The post they are complaining about was a driveby dismissive statement that didn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever.

[0xEF]

Huge difference between me saying manufacturers will cut corners in any way they can (maybe you're taking this as consumer vs manufacterer?) and the person who replied to me saying I don't work a job that encounters "real" (read intentionally vague and diminutive) QC standars. One is a blanket statement that is backed by easily accessed and very public evidence, the other is personal attack.

Please do not conflate the two.

[idiotsecant]

I'm not sure how it's a personal attack, it would be like someone who bakes bread for a living saying that the tolerance of products doesn't really matter, compared with a machinist who knows exactly how much it can matter. It's quantifiably true that serious QA is a thing, your industry just doesn't have it. If you choose to turn that into a personal attack I think that says more about your internal state than it does about the actual post I made.

[bugtodiffer]

> * Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns

in capitalistic countries, yes

[sanderjd]

Communism doesn't exactly have a great reputation for quality either. This is a human problem.