Forums

I read and re read Ravi Philemon's "The Robot Dog That Broke My Brain". As an engineer, the moment that struck me was not the robot itself. It was the moment a professor at the India AI Impact Summit claimed that a Unitree Go2 had been "developed in their Labs of Excellence". Anyone who has actually built real systems could see it was not true. It was an off the shelf robot. People assume this is a small error. It is not. It reflects a deeper structural issue inside parts of the engineering education pipeline. Aspiring Minds tested more than 170,000 engineering students across India, and the results were stark. About 80% were not ready for knowledge work. Around 9.9% could write code that compiles. Only 1.7 to 2.5% had AI relevant skills. These numbers are not a judgment on individuals. They are a judgment on systems that reward degree production over capability, and optics over hard competence. And the consequences of that systemic mismatch show up here in Singapore all the time. Across my career in construction and software, I have worked with engineers from all backgrounds, including many from India, who were outstanding. Meticulous. Precise. Comfortable with mathematics, load paths, error margins, and design verification. Some of the most reliable analytical minds I have worked with were Indian engineers who approached problems with rigour and discipline. But I have also worked with others who struggled with the basics. Not because of who they were, but because the system they came from did not require real engineering ability before awarding the title. The result is luck of the draw. You may get someone brilliant, or you may get someone who cannot perform the core tasks. And the probability of drawing a dud is higher than it should be. Not because of nationality. Because the input system has uneven standards and weak enforcement. One project still stays with me. The deadlines slipped for months. Every week the update was the same. Coming soon. Almost done. Final checks. Except nothing usable was coming. The person engaged had outsourced all the work to people overseas for cheap, hoping they could deliver. The people upstream he relied on simply could not. So, the deadlines were fiction, the progress was fiction, and the whole app never existed. We had to rebuild the entire thing ourselves. This is the part Singapore avoids confronting. If we rely heavily on engineers from systems with a documented ~80% unemployability rate in technical roles, and we do it without independent testing, without competency verification, without tracking by source institution, then we are not running a talent strategy. We are importing upstream variability directly into mission critical sectors. This has nothing to do with where people come from. It has everything to do with the absence of a verification architecture. The robot dog incident is not an isolated embarrassment. It is a symptom of what happens when institutions learn to perform engineering rather than practise it. And Singapore cannot afford to simply trust certificates when the upstream system produces such uneven outcomes. If Singapore wants real engineers, then Singapore needs real verification, real competency checks, real skill testing. Trust is not a quality control mechanism. Titles are not proxies for ability. Because anyone who has built real systems, real structures, real infrastructure knows one thing. Performance collapses when competence is missing, and no amount of "coming soon" will save a weak foundation.   https://www.facebook.com/harish.mohanadas.rdu/posts/pfbid02J1zpxsx4bj43w5wmCzF3wy1uMkgckbD3gbrF3Xx14zPQobJ9PEAC9n2hjbBZNW35l  

Looks like the police are not in sight. If this escalates further, I think you will see the police suddenly fight for the other side.   Then their cartel takes over. And US will finally get a chance to fight a war with its neighbour and stop messing with the world.   I am sure many of the weapons are purchased from Ukraine.  LOL

The Cartel has it's own Delta...