3 ms·

He’s consciously risking his retirement package. They can fire him. Read the article, it says this.

rkagerer 6y ago
That's not quite what it says. Rather, his prospects for gigs involving FAA interaction from the other side: Now sharing his concerns with the press for the first time, he’s risking his post-FAA employment prospects. .... After retiring from the FAA, Jacobsen hopes to work part-time. Someone with his credentials would typically find lots of lucrative freelance work at smaller aerospace companies who need help navigating the maze of FAA regulatory compliance to certify their products. Now, he may struggle to get such gigs if he’s perceived as an antagonist of the agency. “I recognize this could cost me future employment opportunities,” Jacobsen said. “But I feel like my allegiance right now is to these families.” It doesn't mention any retirement package.
- neonological 6y ago
  You're right, I misinterpreted it. I thought the "post-FAA employment prospects" was the package, but of course it means actual post employment opportunities. I'm just skimming through it too quickly. As of right now my post has 7 upvotes and no downvotes which means 7 people agreed with me. That means either a lot of people didn't read the article or they misread the article like I did. I wonder how many downvotes my post will get after they read your comment which essentially categorically proves my initial reply is completely and utterly wrong. Which goes to show how many people just skip over reading the article and go straight to the comment section for a summary/full analysis.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    I upvoted you, trusting your summary in lieu of having read the article. I've now changed that to a downvote. I read the articles to maybe 1/3 of the stories whose comments I browse. The great thing about HN is that misinformation is quickly rectified. Usually.
    - neonological 6y ago
      Not always. I now have 10 upvotes. That likely means more than 10 people voted me up and didn't see that the following reply renders my statement completely incorrect.
    - babesh 6y ago
      It’s because people get a dopamine hit from reacting emotionally to stories. On the other hand, reading before reacting requires resisting going after the dopamine hit and actually works the other way. You have to get sadder consuming time and attention to read material that may or may not be informative. A large percentage of Hacker News is the reaction (probably a majority). And if you point out that they haven’t read the article, some people treat it as a personal attack because it shows them in bad light. Then they start arguing.

That's not quite what it says. Rather, his prospects for gigs involving FAA interaction from the other side: Now sharing his concerns with the press for the first time, he’s risking his post-FAA employment prospects. .... After retiring from the FAA, Jacobsen hopes to work part-time. Someone with his credentials would typically find lots of lucrative freelance work at smaller aerospace companies who need help navigating the maze of FAA regulatory compliance to certify their products. Now, he may struggle to get such gigs if he’s perceived as an antagonist of the agency. “I recognize this could cost me future employment opportunities,” Jacobsen said. “But I feel like my allegiance right now is to these families.” It doesn't mention any retirement package.

neonological 6y ago
You're right, I misinterpreted it. I thought the "post-FAA employment prospects" was the package, but of course it means actual post employment opportunities. I'm just skimming through it too quickly. As of right now my post has 7 upvotes and no downvotes which means 7 people agreed with me. That means either a lot of people didn't read the article or they misread the article like I did. I wonder how many downvotes my post will get after they read your comment which essentially categorically proves my initial reply is completely and utterly wrong. Which goes to show how many people just skip over reading the article and go straight to the comment section for a summary/full analysis.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  I upvoted you, trusting your summary in lieu of having read the article. I've now changed that to a downvote. I read the articles to maybe 1/3 of the stories whose comments I browse. The great thing about HN is that misinformation is quickly rectified. Usually.
  - neonological 6y ago
    Not always. I now have 10 upvotes. That likely means more than 10 people voted me up and didn't see that the following reply renders my statement completely incorrect.
  - babesh 6y ago
    It’s because people get a dopamine hit from reacting emotionally to stories. On the other hand, reading before reacting requires resisting going after the dopamine hit and actually works the other way. You have to get sadder consuming time and attention to read material that may or may not be informative. A large percentage of Hacker News is the reaction (probably a majority). And if you point out that they haven’t read the article, some people treat it as a personal attack because it shows them in bad light. Then they start arguing.