3 ms·

They could have said that, but ultimately it would have been a mistake, I think. Mostly because of things that have been alleged about the incident, their safet

They could have said that, but ultimately it would have been a mistake, I think. Mostly because of things that have been alleged about the incident, their safety record, and the fact that the average number of barrels spilled by thousands of other Gulf platforms (including numerous deepwater wells) was on the order of 1000 barrels yearly. No one would have felt small-minded to focus on those details, especially as the total number of barrels climbs toward 5 million. Bottom line, you need to be near the top of the hill to take the moral high ground, and by all accounts, BP was near the bottom.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
How is that different than me pointing out that Jobs had to ignore more than just one expert's opinion and delivered information that the phone was susceptible to this flaw?
- briancooley 16y ago
  Because you can't put the oil back in the Earth or bring back 11 dead men as easily as you can take back an iPhone. They might appear to be logically equivalent[1], but one clearly has hope of gaining empathy from the public and the other does not, especially considering BP was already on the hot seat about their safety record. [1]I don't think they are - Apple's design decisions are no where in the same league as BP's ongoing record of putting the health of their employees at risk. The only entity benefitting from BP's decision would have been BP, whereas the antenna design supposedly gives better reception when the signal is not being attenuated by the user's grip.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    The discussion wasn't about the magnitude, it was about willful ignorance. It's actually worse. BP was taking a risk by being cheap. Apple knew that the decision they were making would have consequences rather than just a chance.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Yes, I understand this is ironic and also against the rules but come on, downvoting this comment? I know that HN loves its iPhone vs Android debate. I know "we" all love to downvote people on the "wrong" side but really, really? And the only response was that it's on a different magnitude. The discussion wasn't about the magnitude, it was about willful ignorance. It's actually worse. BP was taking a risk by being cheap. Apple knew that the decision they were making would have consequences rather than just a chance.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

How is that different than me pointing out that Jobs had to ignore more than just one expert's opinion and delivered information that the phone was susceptible to this flaw?

briancooley 16y ago
Because you can't put the oil back in the Earth or bring back 11 dead men as easily as you can take back an iPhone. They might appear to be logically equivalent[1], but one clearly has hope of gaining empathy from the public and the other does not, especially considering BP was already on the hot seat about their safety record. [1]I don't think they are - Apple's design decisions are no where in the same league as BP's ongoing record of putting the health of their employees at risk. The only entity benefitting from BP's decision would have been BP, whereas the antenna design supposedly gives better reception when the signal is not being attenuated by the user's grip.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  The discussion wasn't about the magnitude, it was about willful ignorance. It's actually worse. BP was taking a risk by being cheap. Apple knew that the decision they were making would have consequences rather than just a chance.
drivebyacct2 16y ago
Yes, I understand this is ironic and also against the rules but come on, downvoting this comment? I know that HN loves its iPhone vs Android debate. I know "we" all love to downvote people on the "wrong" side but really, really? And the only response was that it's on a different magnitude. The discussion wasn't about the magnitude, it was about willful ignorance. It's actually worse. BP was taking a risk by being cheap. Apple knew that the decision they were making would have consequences rather than just a chance.