3 ms·
> Eh, that doesn’t sound like it? It should, as it was what I said. I'm really not sure if it's possible to make a point any clearer. > Boeing lays off thousa
by nuerow 5y ago
> Eh, that doesn’t sound like it?
It should, as it was what I said. I'm really not sure if it's possible to make a point any clearer.
> Boeing lays off thousands of aerospace engineers regularly (...)
Sounds in line with the classical big corp style of management. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with humans not being the critical element of providing a service. In fact, are you sure you're not supporting the point you're trying to refute?
- lazide 5y agoYou said that the FAA would be causing brain drain - in a field where thousands get laid off all the time? And that Boeing would surely be exerting influence on them so they wouldn’t catch issues - after Boeing laid them off? And that it wouldn’t matter having competent engineers at the FAA because catching things require expensive tests - that the engineers if they existed at the FAA could mandate Boeing pay for, since they would know they needed them to do them? Huh? No one is saying the FAA should be running a full parallel aerospace program. I’m saying if they lack in house competency to call bullshit on what a player they are regulating is passing to them and relying on that player to just always do the right thing, then they are not effective regulators It would be like taking Facebooks word that they are totally being good privacy wise, and not having anyone available who understands internet tracking or adtech. Which, is of course another failing regulator (looking at you FTC), but at least that doesn’t get hundreds of people killed in giant fireballs?