Interesting article but the author needs to learn the difference between systemic and systematic. This is also wrong: > That’s why the shipbuilders bragged th

Interesting article but the author needs to learn the difference between systemic and systematic. This is also wrong: > That’s why the shipbuilders bragged that the Titanic was unsinkable. Instead, systematic design error let water spill from one compartment to the next. The moment an iceberg compromised one section of the hull, the whole ship was doomed. The Titanic was built to withstand as many as four flooded sections and still remain afloat. No one imagined a scenario in which more than four sections would flood, but then the iceberg ripped open six sections and down it went. Was this a systemic failure? I think it's more of a failure to anticipate a possible worst case scenario. An argument could be (and has been) made that if the watertight sections had been taller, the flooding would have been slower and there would have been more time for aid to arrive. That was arguably a flaw in the system of bulkheads and thus a systemic failure.