3 ms·

The irony is that the level of safety we enjoy today is the result of processes and procedures written in the blood of thousands of accident victims from more c

The irony is that the level of safety we enjoy today is the result of processes and procedures written in the blood of thousands of accident victims from more cavalier times. Boeing's actions go against everything the aviation industry has learned about safety, which why their misconduct is so egregious.

caconym_ 6y ago
Humans are surprisingly bad at understanding that some solutions have to be maintained to keep the problem(s) they addressed from coming back. I get it in the case of organizational rot but sometimes it can be staring people in the face and they still don't get it, e.g. in the case of vaccines—who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > vaccines--who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore? If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated. The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots. This is actually an illustration of the more general problem we have as a society: we have forgotten that there are objective criteria we can use to evaluate things, and that as conditions change, we need to re-evaluate based on those criteria instead of just assuming that things that worked in the past will continue to work. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing failed to realize that relaxing engineering standards was a bad idea because the company had been taken over by a different corporate culture, and a regulatory regime that had grown to trust airframe manufacturers based on past information that showed they were worthy of that trust failed to see the change in incentives that made them less worthy of trust than before.
  - ajmurmann 6y ago
    > If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated. >The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots. Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? This inability or unwillingness also seems particularly widespread in the US.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      First instincts are survival of yourself and your family. The corollary is that no system or bureaucracy will ever care about you more than you care about yourself. These things drive our motivations.
      - dTal 6y ago
        Care in the emotional sense, perhaps not. But it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves. There's a reason we have mandatory seatbelt wearing, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales, and child protection services.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. First, even in cases like mandatory seat belt wearing, where the benefit is obvious, the rule would be better enforced by private entities like insurance companies. Get in an accident and not wearing your seat belt? Your insurance company won't pay your medical bills. People are more likely to respond to such incentives than to nanny state laws, however well intentioned. Also, once you've passed one nanny state law, it gets easier to pass more; even proponents of such laws admit that most traffic laws, for example, are just revenue sources for local police departments and have no meaningful effect on safety. Second, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales are mostly aimed at not allowing sales to people, like minors, who are presumed not to have developed the full capacity to evaluate the consequences of their actions. They don't stop adults from dying from lung cancer due to smoking or becoming alcoholics. People who really want to poison themselves with drugs or alcohol will find a way to do it: just look at the rising popularity of vaping. The law cannot stop people from doing it and shouldn't try; the US should have learned that lesson with Prohibition. Third, citing child protective services as an example of bureaucracy taking better care of people than people do themselves is laughable. Anyone who has had personal experience with CPS can tell you horror stories, and what statistics are available do not paint a pretty picture. Based on my own and my wife's experiences (my wife was a social worker for 20 years), I would say that roughly 80 to 90 percent of children who are taken from their families by CPS are worse off than they would have been had they been left with their families, however imperfect those families were. I suspect most people who have had personal experience with CPS would give a similar figure.

caconym_ 6y ago

Humans are surprisingly bad at understanding that some solutions have to be maintained to keep the problem(s) they addressed from coming back. I get it in the case of organizational rot but sometimes it can be staring people in the face and they still don't get it, e.g. in the case of vaccines—who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore?

pdonis 6y ago
> vaccines--who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore? If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated. The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots. This is actually an illustration of the more general problem we have as a society: we have forgotten that there are objective criteria we can use to evaluate things, and that as conditions change, we need to re-evaluate based on those criteria instead of just assuming that things that worked in the past will continue to work. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing failed to realize that relaxing engineering standards was a bad idea because the company had been taken over by a different corporate culture, and a regulatory regime that had grown to trust airframe manufacturers based on past information that showed they were worthy of that trust failed to see the change in incentives that made them less worthy of trust than before.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  > If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated. >The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots. Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? This inability or unwillingness also seems particularly widespread in the US.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    First instincts are survival of yourself and your family. The corollary is that no system or bureaucracy will ever care about you more than you care about yourself. These things drive our motivations.
    - dTal 6y ago
      Care in the emotional sense, perhaps not. But it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves. There's a reason we have mandatory seatbelt wearing, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales, and child protection services.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. First, even in cases like mandatory seat belt wearing, where the benefit is obvious, the rule would be better enforced by private entities like insurance companies. Get in an accident and not wearing your seat belt? Your insurance company won't pay your medical bills. People are more likely to respond to such incentives than to nanny state laws, however well intentioned. Also, once you've passed one nanny state law, it gets easier to pass more; even proponents of such laws admit that most traffic laws, for example, are just revenue sources for local police departments and have no meaningful effect on safety. Second, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales are mostly aimed at not allowing sales to people, like minors, who are presumed not to have developed the full capacity to evaluate the consequences of their actions. They don't stop adults from dying from lung cancer due to smoking or becoming alcoholics. People who really want to poison themselves with drugs or alcohol will find a way to do it: just look at the rising popularity of vaping. The law cannot stop people from doing it and shouldn't try; the US should have learned that lesson with Prohibition. Third, citing child protective services as an example of bureaucracy taking better care of people than people do themselves is laughable. Anyone who has had personal experience with CPS can tell you horror stories, and what statistics are available do not paint a pretty picture. Based on my own and my wife's experiences (my wife was a social worker for 20 years), I would say that roughly 80 to 90 percent of children who are taken from their families by CPS are worse off than they would have been had they been left with their families, however imperfect those families were. I suspect most people who have had personal experience with CPS would give a similar figure.