[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.