4 ms·
Or maybe it's what is repeated here so often: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is that what you tell hundreds of thousands of passengers sitting
by mancerayder 9y ago
Or maybe it's what is repeated here so often: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Is that what you tell hundreds of thousands of passengers sitting in a terminal with canceled flights and confused airline employees during one of the biggest holiday weekends?
If your credit card number gets stolen or worse, your identity, and it's up to you to get that straightened out, are you just going to shrug your shoulders and write that off as the inevitable impossibility of perfection?
- ams6110 9y agoI'm saying yes, maybe that is the case. Maybe those scenarios are either a) cheaper to handle on occasion than building systems which will never fail, or b) unavoidable (with some low probability). Air travel itself is not 100% safe. Planes crash. People die. Yet we feel that the probabilities are enough in our favor that we accept it.
- toyg 9y agoWhat? "We" don't accept anything: strict regulations and processes were put in place to reduce the probability of accidents to the absolute minimum. Did this stop manufacturers and airlines to spearhead this or that new plane? Maybe - very few companies can carry that sort of compliance effort; but it's why the public trust air travel as fundamentally safe (statistically speaking, it's probably safer than cars).