3 ms·
No, it's not. I think it would even have been counterproductive to find that programmer. People would have latched onto "see, it was a bad programmer!" and the
by sgift 7y ago
No, it's not. I think it would even have been counterproductive to find that programmer. People would have latched onto "see, it was a bad programmer!" and the real problems could have been forgotten.
The investigators did the right thing, they focused on the systematic problems. And the coworkers also did the right thing by not providing someone as a scapegoat.
- Thorrez 7y agoI would think it's easier to blame someone you've never talked to than to blame someone you have talked to. If they had interviewed him, he might have revealed systematic failures in many other parts of the company. But if he's a nameless individual who can't say anything, he can be a silent scapegoat.
- hhas01 7y agoWhat absolute bullshit. How the hell are investigators supposed to construct a full and accurate assessment of what went wrong and the correct way[s] to remedy it when a key testimony is nowhere to be found? At best it was cowardice; at worst, a deliberate coverup. ISTR that whenever the Lockheed Skunkworks lost a test plane and pilot, the engineers were responsible for explaining to the widow what had gone wrong and what they had done to fix it so that it wouldn’t happen again. That’s what wearing big boy pants really looks like, kid. If you aren’t willing to testify to the shortcomings of your own work and why it is the way it is, you have no business doing it in the first place. Least of all when lives are on the line.
- saagarjha 7y agoWhy would you be willing to testify on the shortcomings of your work if you’re going to end up as blurb taken out of context alongside your face as “the Therac-25 murderer” in the news?