galadiman

In your example, the HDTV is not part of the intrinsic function of the building.

In your other example, the failure of one ship in the flotilla will not generally have a significant impact on the larger system, and it can be pretty easily discerned.

So you're still not clear that increasing the size of an individual part is not trivial?

So you think that you can make a paper airplane with a 100 foot wingspan?

Do you think that a 10 foot tall bumblebee can still fly?
(more to follow)

Ok, I'll drop an off-the-cuff colloquial definition of "complex".
A system is 'complex' if the relationship between each of its subsystems is not easy to grasp, or sometimes, even discern.

"Larger" systems inherently have more 'moving parts', and it is thus sometimes more difficult to ascertain the effect of a change/failure in one part on the whole system.

In fiction: the Death Star. Who'da thunk that puting a tiny missile in an exhaust port would blow up the WHOLE THING? (OK, not a great example. But lol.)

In real life: the Space Shutle Challenger. (Relatively) tiny systems failure.

An example of a VERY complex system: the climate of Earth. Lots of moving parts, can't always tell how one change in the system will change the 'superstate' of the entire system.
Another very complex system: a living creature. And it's pretty easy to show that a larger system is much more complex than a smaller system in living things: Compare an amoeba to a squirrel. Living things have the same basic functions on a macro scale (eat, reproduce, etc.) but larger creatures need organs and specialized systems to do the things that are not needed at a smaller scale.

Wikipedia: Complex System
A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.[1]

Wow, I highly reccommend that article - lots of detail!

One other thing a small boat/small apartment building does not really have to consider that a large ship/skyscraper has to contend with: physical stresses of scale. For example, no one cares what a 20 mph wind will do to a 5 story building, but a 75 story building needs specific engineering to deal with those very stresses. Similarly, if a 40 foot houseboat runs up on a sandbar, it might be a bit of trouble to get it off, but if a 825 foot tanker (let's even assume it's empty) runs aground, it would probably have catastrophic hull damage.

Remember, physical forces over large areas increase with the area presented to the force, and areas increas as the square of dimensions... so the force over a 2x2 area vs 4x4 area vs an 8x8 area is 4 vs 16 vs 64. This adds design and materials complexity.

You can't really count Denis Leary as part of the 'successful because they picked him for a look' crowd, imo - I mean, the guy seems to have tried to piss off every person in the world with his humor... he might be more coincidentally falling into that crowd.

I think Scott Bakula may belong in that group as well, though I think his face (is starting to look) surprisingly like Ian McKellen's...

Also, imagine bringing a bicycle to a stop. Pretty simple, right? And that's pretty complex little machine, relatively. How about a pickup truck? Not sooo hard.

Now try to bring a supertanker to a stop. Ya think ya might need a little more room? (5-10 miles?)
Ya think ya might need some foresight as to what's much further ahead? Perhaps a sensor/system to look ahead? Do you know any cars that need radar to operate?

Does that make a larger unit more complex? You bet.

Larger motors are DEFINITELY more complex than smaller motors. Because in order to maintain efficiency, you can't just 'size up' - you have to design more carefully, take more failure conditions into account, be more careful selecting materials, use finer tolerances in manufacturing (a 0.1% divergence in a 5cm piston is... 0.005 cm, or 0.05 mm, or 1/2 the width of a human hair. [http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/] I think that might be an acceptable tolerance in a car-size engine.
In a 50 cm piston (For a large ship, maybe?) it would be 0.05 cm, or 1/2mm. Easily visible to the human eye. Ever seen 100,000 psi of flaming gases go through a 1/2mm hole?

I believe some of the word used are "catastrophic failure", "explosive decompression," you get the picture.


And in terms of materials, you'd need much different materials for an engine with 10x the displacement, because the temperatures are MUCH higher.

Pretty basic science, dude.

I'm with claws. I like my PvP and PvE separated.

Yup, blasters are pretty much done. They certainly don’t help on ITFs, LGTFs, or Apex.

Also, tanks, yup, don’t need any more of those. I can tank Hami with a well placed Brawl on my Mastermind. And LR is a noob.

And so on, and so on…

How many times a day do people bring up the Obsolete AT argument? Wait, let me go start another one. We’re getting low.

What, no one recalls This Classic?!?

One of my favorite series starts with this trilogy:

The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb

Warning: It ain't kittens and fluffy bunnies.

Also, it is 9 books total, and they're LONG books to boot.

But I really liked it.

Also, if you're into science fiction at all, you have to read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and all of its sequels. For many, many reasons. DOO EET.

I use them whenever I remember them. Great feature!

I lol at Johnny Butane. Not the 'with you' kind of lol, but the 'at you' kind.

And not because you're "Johnny Butane", but because your arguments are specious, disingenuous, and illogical.

GLHF. Or don't, because you seem to have decided not to.

Soulwind: Not that I'm familiar with the tech, so forgive me if I sound ignorant, but I'd hope it would be some kind of database link to the TF's that drop the reward, rather than a manual text update.

To the OP: No, and No.

Thank you, and Have a Nice Day.