The Nature of Control

During a conversation about LRA with some associates, one matter that came up was on the nature of control within the system. Running with those thoughts, it does seem to beg that a function of control can be to rebalance weak effects.

The more you understand and can control an effect, the weaker that effect could technically be.

To run with some metaphors; if you know the precise point of leverage, you don’t need to be insanely strong to shift an object, know the structural weak-point and you only need to take that out to bring down the entire wall, the precision driver can speed down an alleyway without hitting all the cardboard boxes or glass panes being moved while the miami vice driver with no control will still reach the end of the alley but will plow through everything on the way there…

Control - you don't always need a hammer...

Control – you don’t always need a hammer…

I’m sure you get my point.

So the question it calls into is whether Control should be a generic effect, or firmly linked to every effect.

Hm, or that that control can’t just be used to rebalance weak effects, but it can be used to reduce the amount of that effect that has to be reached to achieve the critical effect.

Which could be helpful for budgets when you can fine tune that you only need a few taps from a hammer to get the nail in, you don’t need a fully pneumatic sledgehammer to drive it home and that optical gaming mouse barely needs you to move your wrist to headshot the freak in that latest fps..

It’s one of those fun things in the world, speed without control is quite dangerous, strength without control can be just as bad. So in systems engineering and identifying all those critical effects, if you don’t have some control included on those effects, what will you have?


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply