3 ms·
- Yeah, practice is definitely not the same, but depending on the domain, it's usually at least a lot better than nothing, even if the real thing is a lot bette
by galdosdi 10y ago
- Yeah, practice is definitely not the same, but depending on the domain, it's usually at least a lot better than nothing, even if the real thing is a lot better than practice. (To speak to your example, at least in wartime, peacetime militaries don't have to worry about reteaching their soldiers EVERYTHING. Maybe they've never been in real combat, but at least they can consistently shoot at a target. That's better than not being able to do that either.)
- I mean, it depends on the specific case, right? Obviously that's true in this example. You can also come up with opposing examples. I also misspoke a bit -- even if the automation cost savings are free and you're strictly better off with it than without it, adding some practice for human operators may get you even more savings, and it's often overlooked.
My point is just that practice/drilling can be a useful tool in the toolbox. It depends on the situation, but it shouldn't be ignored.
- afarrell 10y agoFirst responders practiced for handling scenarios like the Boston bombings for years before 2013. It paid off.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoInitial responses to ebola in the US tended to be pretty badly bungled because essentially nobody was trained for handling very dangerous, highly contagious disease. Should they have been? Going back how long? Should they be now?
- thaumasiotes 10y ago> To speak to your example, at least in wartime, peacetime militaries don't have to worry about reteaching their soldiers EVERYTHING. Maybe they've never been in real combat, but at least they can consistently shoot at a target. My understanding, which is only very loosely informed, is that while soldiers get retrained, peacetime generals, who make the decisions, usually need to be replaced. Crisis response, depending on the crisis, will vary in how much it demands one or the other skillset -- but I think someone whose job it is to oversee safety systems, when in practice (1) the safety systems almost never fail, so that (2) the job consists mainly of convincing politicians that they should feel good about what you're doing, can be reasonably closely analogized to a peacetime general. Making a contingency plan that sounds good to an audience with no experience is a different skill than making a contingency plan that effectively addresses the problem. Practice definitely can be a useful tool. But just as there are situations where it will help, there are plenty of situations where it won't. When events are all drill and no reality, mission drift in the drill is inevitable. Sometimes a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure.