Hossein Dehnavifard Power Tech

  I have hesitated for a long time to write about Iran. Not because I don’t have thoughts—but because my thoughts are complicated. They are mixed with memory, anger, regret, and uncertainty. Like many Iranians, I carry both love for my country and deep frustration with what it has become. A Revolution That Led to Something Else Many years ago, Iranians rose up and removed the Shah. At the time, it felt like a step toward freedom. But history is not always kind to revolutions. What followed was not stability, but chaos—out of which a new system emerged. What began with a short period of political openness quickly transformed into a theocracy, and over time, into something even more restrictive. Today, many feel that one form of centralized power was replaced by another. From Hope to Control In the early years after the revolution, there was still some space for political participation. But that space narrowed quickly. Over time: Power consolidated Dissent became dang...

When I try to understand where Iran might be heading, I cannot ignore history. Iran has seen moments like this before—times when central authority weakened, and the country stood at a turning point. One example goes back to Nader Shah . After the fall of the Safavid dynasty, he attempted to restore legitimacy by bringing back a Safavid prince to the throne. The idea was simple: use a familiar name to unify the country. But it didn’t work. Rivalries, lack of real authority, and deeper structural problems made that solution unsustainable. Eventually, Nader Shah set aside the symbolic ruler and took full control himself. History offers another example at the end of the Qajar dynasty . The last king, Ahmad Shah Qajar , was widely seen as weak and ineffective. Real power had already shifted away from the monarchy. In that environment, Reza Shah , a military figure, rose through the system, became prime minister, and eventually replaced the ruling dynasty altogether. These moments wer...

  The academic world runs on one of the strangest economic models in modern society. Researchers spend years developing ideas, running experiments, building prototypes, validating theories, and writing papers. They push human knowledge forward. Yet when it’s time to publish this work, the system turns upside down: 1. Researchers Pay to Publish Their Own Work Most open-access journals charge anywhere from hundreds to several thousands of dollars in “article processing fees.” These fees don’t go to the researchers, the grad students, the engineers, or the institutions that actually created the intellectual value. Instead, the majority of the revenue goes to: Publishing companies, Editorial platforms, Administrative overhead, And sometimes mandatory “open-access” labels that simply unlock a PDF. Meanwhile, the authors — the people who invented , tested , and proved something new — receive: No financial compensation , No share of the publication revenue , S...

  When new systems emerge, people often approach them with skepticism — and for good reason. Scientists, in particular, are trained to question everything. So when an honor-based publication system or reward-based model appears, the first reaction is often doubt: Who is responsible? Who ensures fairness? What if someone violates the rules? This reaction reminded me of something simple but profound — our pickup soccer games. At first, we didn’t like the idea of paying for a casual game. It wasn’t a league, there was no formal organization, and we didn’t know who was accountable. What if the organizer failed to book the field? What if players didn’t show up? It seemed uncertain and risky. But over time, as we continued playing, something important happened. We realized the group was organized. The person managing the field bookings was reliable. Players respected the schedule, showed up on time, and played safely. And when issues arose — as they always do — we had a point of contac...

 In a recent leadership meeting, the topic of technical debt came up repeatedly. At first, it sounded heavy — like something buried deep in code or system architecture. But as the discussion unfolded, I realized that technical debt is actually about something very simple: trade-offs and communication . ⏳ What Technical Debt Really Means Technical debt occurs whenever we take shortcuts to move faster — skipping documentation, reusing older designs, or delaying testing. Think of it like borrowing time today, knowing we’ll have to “pay it back” later. Deliberate technical debt is intentional: everyone knows the trade-off, documents it, and plans to resolve it later. Inadvertent (or inferred) technical debt happens accidentally, often due to miscommunication, unclear requirements, or lack of information. In safety-critical industries like aviation, some debts may be minor, affecting only efficiency or maintainability. Others can affect safety, reliability, or regulatory ...

  System engineering has traditionally been a structured, document-heavy discipline focused on requirements, architecture, and verification. While this rigor is essential, it often clashes with the fast-paced, iterative nature of Agile development. The challenge is clear: how do we keep the discipline of systems engineering while still moving at the speed of Agile? That’s where Azure DevOps (ADO) and the right process design become powerful enablers. 🔑 The Role of Process A well-defined process is as important as the tools we use. In many organizations, project managers become the central hub for communication, coordination, and reporting. While this seems logical, it can create a bottleneck —all decisions, updates, and tracking pass through a single role. This slows down the team, reduces agility, and limits engineers’ ability to adapt quickly. By contrast, if systems engineers take on a larger share of responsibility for defining, linking, and managing requirements and de...