4 ms·
I wouldn't say defensive, but rather informative. The main point of that thread is not actually to "solve the mystery" of the crash, or even to point fingers a
by sbarre 8y ago
I wouldn't say defensive, but rather informative.
The main point of that thread is not actually to "solve the mystery" of the crash, or even to point fingers at where the fault lies.
The point I took away from the thread is to show that these issues are complex, and there is never one single thing you can point to as "the problem". In most cases, it is really a series of interconnected events.
Our media (and I think many of us - so I'm not singling them out) loves to simplify problems in an effort to make them understandable by the average person, and while that may be necessary for them to get people to pay attention, it does us all a disservice in the long-term I think.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 8y ago...as long as you aren't pointing at the software engineer, whose products did exactly what they were supposed to do.
- platz 8y agoAh yes.. the code meets the requirements. It follows the spec. No further involvement necessary. And if Boeing does release a 'software upgrade', what is there to say about why the software wasn't required to be that way in the first place?