Re: Brexit?
"I gather Boris is not a details man."
Only when he can invent them.
42408 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Even the smallest of changes to an aircraft triggers a huge chain of events in motion, with each event starting its own chain and so on."
The correct way of doing it is not to get it wrong in the first place. Then there are no costs for making a change and no costs, human and financial, from not doing so.
If you remember Windows pre-95 the icon for the button at the left of the title bar had on oblong on it (I suspect it was an image of a space bar because I think some incantation involving space could substitute for it). It was said that a good tester could look at that oblong and see a minus sign.
"the wrong buttons were pressed"
These days it becomes difficult to distinguish the button from anything else on the page. Or the button is further down the page, below the several inches of white space that extends to the bottom of the screen. Or work out which bit of text is a link and which isn't because the User Experience Designer has gone to considerable lengths to ensure they're the same colour.
All because of style over function, style is a matter of fashion and fashion dictates flat design.
Designing an interface takes knowledge, intelligence and thought. Anything cobbled together with crayons is an experience even if the adjective in front of it should be "bad" so a User Experience is substituted for a User Interface.
Place the blame where it belongs.
Governments are particularly prone to that outlook. I think it's because they make laws which are supposed to be obeyed so there's a presumption that they will be. The evidence given by the existence of a large law enforcement system is overlooked. There's also an assumption that laws will be obeyed in the way they intended - it's the sort of thinking that sees nothing could possibly go wrong with back-doored encryption.
"I must re-read the Yes Minister books again."
One or other of them should be a set book for GCSE English. Every year. They're now sufficiently old to be considered classics (which they always were, of course) and far more relevant than the classics Dickens and Jane Austen were in my day.
BTW Lossiemouth was a warning to Bernard that it might be his diet.
The first two episodes of YPM were on BBC4 the other evening. It doesn't seem to be part of a plan to rebroadcast the lot.
And then there's the one about the joint military exercises. The Army officers were fed up with being called "Pongoes" and complained. As a result the Navy circulated an order saying "Army officers should not be referred to as Pongoes" and the RAF circulated an order saying "Pongoes should be referred to as Army officers".
Also apocryphal. Allegedly.
"Obviously, over time, old kit dies and is replaced with new kit that should no longer contain outdated language."
The entire problem arises from the fact that words, at least in English, have long been able to have multiple meanings. This seems to be at the root of your idea of "outdated" - it seems that the offence seekers want words to have only one. What's even more peculiar is that they seem to only want a word to have its most offensive meaning even if it's one, for example "blacklist", which only they attribute to it.
If we are to update the language this is a Herculean task. Perhaps you could start be looking up the dictionary definition of "set", tell us which is the most offensive meaning which should be retained and then suggest alternatives for all the other meanings.
"I think its a new problem"
Unfortunately it isn't. It's Puritanism updated. These things go in cycles. Bowdlerisation and high Victorian prudery followed in the late 18th & the 19th centuries. Periodically we get outbursts of of people looking for things to be offended by. Samuel Johnson's riposte is often the best way of dealing with them.