restalis

I call these "trophy employees". They are not subjected to the same rules as regular (anonymous) engineers, and their tenure inside the company is not given by the value of their ongoing engineering output.

It's even worse. Nowadays, in order to land, the aircraft needs to be almost empty, otherwise the mechanical structure that supports the stress of impact with the runway may break. So, heavier (as with batteries included) aircraft landing will mean the need to design sturdier landing gear, and stronger landing gear will most likely mean heavier materials as well.

I understand the idea you wanted to convey and that commenting on the technical detail is not something we're supposed to do, but the technical side of your example is just too glaring to ignore. A people-carrying aircraft, be it of electric propulsion, or of other type, is heavy. Like, several tons (at minimum) heavy. To acquire the necessary portance, the aircraft has to be accelerated (on its inert wheels) on the runway up to the take-off speed and then to be able to hold the cruising speed, using engines capable of generating such thrust by only moving the air. That's a lot of force right there, and the engine that has to do this, will have to be pretty tough. Regardless of the fact that the source of the on-board energy is electric or not, that same air will have to be moved, somehow, at the needed speeds, and it will be by an engine that will look and work pretty much the same way the current jet engines do, since the shape is dictated by the aerodynamics and the internal design is given by the (air) fluid dynamics it has to work with. The single-crystal turbine blades are just an optimization. Weaker (regular fine-grained casting) materials can be used, but that will mean limiting the performance to lower tolerance levels (and most likely be heavier as well, to compensate for the lower mechanical strength).

This judgement has merit. However, over the years I got to perceive that over-engineering tendency to be the manifestation of exploratory spirit in one's craft. This is how the Unix got to be created at Bell Labs. To their managers, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie worked on programs like the "ed" editor, thus they cared about "value being provided to the user (or the business)". What was later officially named Unix was not pitched as an operating system, but instead framed mostly just a needed way to organize the growing set of utilities, among other things (i.e. as a footnote). What are the over-engineered bits (and the related gained experience) in a given project may become useful for something else. People (tend to) do this kind of stuff. But should they be blamed, considering the enticing promise of growth and development of new technologies, practiced by employers themselves, as part of recruitment game?

This. When more computing power and memory resources became available to software engineers, we've seen how that impacted the software development. Sure, there were happy stories of new class of problems being attacked, which couldn't before due to resource limits, but a lot of software just stopped being frugal and did pretty much what it did before, but somehow consuming much more. Extrapolating to the case of staggering resources poured over the AI solutions, I'd be surprised if most of it won't just be consumed to generate higher resolution (and longer) videos.