3 ms·

The point is to still have it when you didn’t know you needed it. That’s the purpose of all redundant safety systems. The redundancy isn’t there to keep the ser

The point is to still have it when you didn’t know you needed it. That’s the purpose of all redundant safety systems. The redundancy isn’t there to keep the service operating; it’s to keep people from dying. You can never know if the primary safety system is functioning perfectly, so you need other systems to be there to step in when the primary fails unexpectedly. If you detect the primary system has failed, isn’t it reasonable that you should stop operation as quickly and safely as possible, and be thankful nothing bad happened while you lacked redundancy? Any SPoF could be fatal for hundreds of people.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I'm not going to write the wall of text that's required to properly describe the situation but that's just not how these systems work. Industrial automation has all sorts of feedback loops so they people operating it know if they can trust it. The people using it are pretty much always trained in how to run the various systems manually so that an errant sensor doesn't turn into a clogged up rail line or waste whatever is in your process equipment that happens to be mid-cycle. This isn't some consumer appliance where you have to stupid proof every inch of it. These systems are bespoke and their architecture is mostly a matter of business decisions and not at all a matter of the internet peanut gallery trying to figure out how safe they can make it.
- coder543 5y ago
  If you want to claim public transit operators are happy to take on liability for potential deaths by continuing to operate when they know about reduced (or no) safety margin, that’s an interesting idea. Calling me a ”clipboard warrior” isn’t furthering your argument, though. This comment provides an excellent example along the lines I was talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30902016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30902016
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I'm not going to write the wall of text that's required to properly describe the situation but that's just not how these systems work. Industrial automation has all sorts of feedback loops so they people operating it know if they can trust it. The people using it are pretty much always trained in how to run the various systems manually so that an errant sensor doesn't turn into a clogged up rail line or waste whatever is in your process equipment that happens to be mid-cycle. This isn't some consumer appliance where you have to stupid proof every inch of it. These systems are bespoke and their architecture is mostly a matter of business decisions and not at all a matter of the internet peanut gallery trying to figure out how safe they can make it.

coder543 5y ago
If you want to claim public transit operators are happy to take on liability for potential deaths by continuing to operate when they know about reduced (or no) safety margin, that’s an interesting idea. Calling me a ”clipboard warrior” isn’t furthering your argument, though. This comment provides an excellent example along the lines I was talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30902016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30902016
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago