3 ms·

it is really difficult to get people to 'admit' mistakes like this due to the long term human costs often involved. Even, people will do a lot to avoid any addi

it is really difficult to get people to 'admit' mistakes like this due to the long term human costs often involved. Even, people will do a lot to avoid any additional financial costs incurred when such an admission is made. Hence, academics and interested non-academic parties are often boycotted from releasing such information, or if not possible ,ridiculed / discredited to avoid such financial costs to the responsible parties. it's a shame, and i'm not yelling conspiracy, but this is how business and politics works, and that's a shame / sad. If anyone was interested to follow up and research the current status of this valley you note, most likely they would meet similar resistance to publish their findings.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
moosey 7y ago
Looking from the outside, dealing with problems of this scale have a number of aspects to them: remediation of the issue, understanding, prevention, and accountability. In this list, accountability stands out. A person or organization that makes a mistake that has already been taught the other pieces of understanding and prevention of an accident has limited need for accountability. This is not how our society works or thinks, though. There is a strong current of punitive accountability. From a financial perspective, someone might argue that this makes sense: someone who causes harm to many others shouldn't be allowed to remain rich. However, implementing such a system means that organizations within will defend themselves vociferously. This is why many businesses are starting to use low or no accountability systems to make sure that root cause analysis and mistakes are brought to the forefront after issues. I'm not suggesting that such a system would be easy to implement on a much larger level, especially with our level of inequality in the US, but perhaps the solution is just not to be so damn punitive, and perhaps the other aspects of issue remediation wouldn't be so damn bad. Perhaps there wouldn't be lawyers informing business owners that they can't apologize, because that is opening the doors to being completely destroyed by accountability.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

moosey 7y ago

Looking from the outside, dealing with problems of this scale have a number of aspects to them: remediation of the issue, understanding, prevention, and accountability. In this list, accountability stands out. A person or organization that makes a mistake that has already been taught the other pieces of understanding and prevention of an accident has limited need for accountability. This is not how our society works or thinks, though. There is a strong current of punitive accountability. From a financial perspective, someone might argue that this makes sense: someone who causes harm to many others shouldn't be allowed to remain rich. However, implementing such a system means that organizations within will defend themselves vociferously. This is why many businesses are starting to use low or no accountability systems to make sure that root cause analysis and mistakes are brought to the forefront after issues. I'm not suggesting that such a system would be easy to implement on a much larger level, especially with our level of inequality in the US, but perhaps the solution is just not to be so damn punitive, and perhaps the other aspects of issue remediation wouldn't be so damn bad. Perhaps there wouldn't be lawyers informing business owners that they can't apologize, because that is opening the doors to being completely destroyed by accountability.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]