4 ms·
> it probably wouldn't if you cut corners on engineering to reduce costs and nothing bad happens, that good engineering actually
by ddalex 7y ago
> it probably wouldn't
if you cut corners on engineering to reduce costs and nothing bad happens, that good engineering actually
- colonelcanoe 7y agoIt's not necessarily good engineering, it could also be selection bias. It depends on how much risk is added by cutting corners. If too many corners are cut, but it didn't fail just due to luck, it's still bad engineering.
- WhiteOwlLion 7y agoIts also bad for perception of the aviation industry if people die from faulty hardware. Many people don't like to fly already because they don't feel safe. These type of incidents don't help calm those fears.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoNot really. Suppose Bob fires a gun into a crowded area and happens not to hit anyone. I didn't hurt anyone! It's my right as a consequentialist!" Bob still goes to prison. Beyond that, engineering is about using a principled approach, by definition. Throwing something together ad-hoc and finding that it happens to work, is not what is meant by 'engineering'.
- ddalex 7y agoI think your analogy misses the point that a core scope of engineering is reducing cost. Firing a weapon in a crowded area is not a scope of anybody, bar terrorists. If Bob would be a humanitarian terrorist, him firing the gun in a crowded area and not hitting anyone would be a great outcome for him, even if he didn't hit anybody just by chance.
- ordu 7y ago> a core scope of engineering is reducing cost. A core scope of engineering is to make technologies to make life of people better without killing them. To reduce cost is a one of instrumental goals helping business to do more than it might have done without it. To risk someone's life is a very bad idea, even if it increases profits.