> This is because government is inherently risk-averse and attracts many working types who are more attracted by stability, consistency and a ‘safe’ job. Obviously governments are varied beasts and there are some ‘funky’, innovative, exciting departments, although in my experience they are very much exceptions.
It's funny how true this is while some government jobs immediately spit in the face of these practices. More specifically, a lot of O-1 and O-2 officers are so far up their own ass that they don't realize that the stability exists because the technical side of some jobs have such a well established routine.
Yes sir. We understand that you have a college degree in chemistry. We know that according to your analysis, we should do A, B, and C. But have you considered that the software we have for mapping out RF propagation has (quite literally) never failed us? Have you considered that the people who wrote this software both have a degree in the field and refined it based on real-world analysis? Also, have you considered that having us set up a re-transmission site in the middle of a firing range is bad for the equipment and bad for my chances of living to see 21?
You would think that last one would be common sense, but waking up to friendly fire (explosions) at 6AM is terrifying.