Exactly, I work at a major semiconductor manufacturer: "we make logic, we don't use it".

Cool.

And helping others when needed . . . which is also happiness.

I can see you're way into the pursuit of happiness.

There's big bucks in class action lawsuits, because the law firms represent claims of thousands of shareholders. If the firm takes 1/3 of the winnings, such becomes quite an accumulation.

I recollect a discussion I overheard while enrolled in my 2nd year of law school about how the students were going to use the law to rape the public. This solidified my distaste of the legal profession and I enrolled in another university's masters program in business with four minors in business disciplines I could utilize.

Upon graduation, the university offered me the directorship of its computer center and school-wide information technology -- a position I turned down because it had a unionized staff -- which would make it very difficult to bring about change.

IBM rings a bell:
When I moved to NY from the midwest to marry my sweetheart, I interviewed with several divisions of IBM, Each told me I would be working very late when it came time to prepare the monthly closing reports. I asked why, and the answer was akin to, "We had to prepare spreadsheets and tabulate the numbers."

"Why don't you use computers to do that?" And the repetitive answer was, "We do it by hand." They never offered me a position as I did not seem interested, which was true. And they were not interested in my self-taught background in computers because they were filling an accounting position.

Me dino was already thinking of that old saying, "You get what you pay for" before I read "one usually receives that for which he pays."

During the 90s, me dino received less than $10 as my share of a class action lawsuit. Doubt--no, I know--that the law firm's cut was anywhere that low.

LibertyBelle:
In Orlando, the massive Interstate 4 construction project conducts its road closures during the night hours as much of the disruptive work takes place at that time.

While difficult for drivers at night with the frequent detours or lane closures, the workers perform their duties in simulated daylight.

Irshultis: I would parallel my analogy of "analysts" and "programmers" with your "engineers" and "constructors." The thinking and creativity of each is quite different.

Now they say they WERE adjusting the tensioner when it collapsed:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-stu...

Exactly, the military should have done the same, they paid the highest rates, got the lowest quality, then paid again to fix it, and endless circle, IBM made a mint off the submarine sonar world and it was still a crappy system, interface wise.

To augment Allosaur's mention of lowest bidder (above) and peterchunt's mention of design engineers (below):

First a little history. About 1980, businesses nationwide began cutting payroll costs by combining certain roles in business organizations (I call this a "movement"); Several years later it was recognized as the cause underlying unforeseen/undesirable consequences. Specifically developers and adopters of the theory (movement) did not take into consideration the need for separate micro or macro thinking each of the roles required -- because typically each of these thinking roles mutually exclude the other. Very few people could operate in both realms because their "brains were not wired that way." As part of a small vocal minority which published a few books and articles why this would not work in the long run, immediate profits won out. We "die hards" are still around, doing other things for enjoyment in pseudo-retirement.

As a computer systems and software consultant in the last century, the lowest bidder typically caused numerous head aches for us because we needed to supervise the vendors (but we could not because the vendor contracts specifically excluded us). Our clients assumed the vendors had quality supervision, but later discovered they did not, because most vendors lacked the analytical ability to design an appropriate human software interface in a new and growing industry.

I moved my firm in a different direction. The firm became very profitable because we had both analysts and programmers; we had to charge the highest billable rates in NYC at the time to cover anticipated but undefined issues which typically arose in highly innovative and technical engagements. This policy eliminated potential customers who could not afford quality. We eventually specialized rescuing clients from competitors who failed to deliver on their contracts. There is an old adage: "Pay for it now, or pay for it later."

The bottom line is "one usually receives that for which he pays."

In retrospect, it was the right move, as I retired in six years and became a SCUBA diving instructor and then an airplane pilot, flying volunteer missions which provide needy people with transportation to/from medical treatment not readily available in their locale -- the latter I continue to do right to this day. Alas, I do not have the stamina to teach others SCUBA diving.

I guess their Miami office will handle this case:
https://www.forthepeople.com/business...

This video clearly shows the tensioner snapping, at the .07 mark.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/21/dashcam...

"For the people" (and themselves, of course)......

They also changed the movement plan, which had a support on the very end of the part that collapsed, but moved inwards, due to some road thing or another, and then it was moved, the guy on YouTube says that was a primary cause as it put all the stress on the overhead support stringers, which was why it cracked, they were "adjusting the stringers when it collapsed, that was why the crane was there.

Me dino's curiosity just had to look it up. It's nationwide and on your side. Bet they'd get sued for advertising with that jingle.
https://www.forthepeople.com/

Morgan & Morgan was one of the first to announce filing.

The design specs were changed before construction with a movement of seven feet of one of the supports. While it was claimed all the calculations were re-done, I question that.

When they were doing what they were doing, the road should have been closed, just in case, but they did not, and that was what happened. Not smart, especially when they knew something was wrong.

Nope, it was the install, a change in plan that was not approved or designed for, and trying to make up for it, by changing the tension of the tensioner on the end, which was when it fell down.

It may not have been the process, but a lack of knowledge and common sense, they moved one support at install they needed on the end that collapsed, not according to plan, then they went to adjust the tensioner and boom, there was no stopping it. See the video and it all is crystal clear.

There were several things they could have done, but they set it up when they installed it, and then it was pretty much doomed. See the link above, there are 2 videos done b a really good, common sense guy who seems to have it nailed.

Actually, here is a guy who explains it in pretty clear detail, what they were doing, and why it failed. In fact, they should have closed the road when doing it, due to the possibility of collapse, but everyone appears to have assumed it would work, which, of course, it didin't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioC61...