5 ms·

The wording of that sentence threw me off, he wrote 'necessarily' but my mind heard unnecessarily as well. I think the gist of the article is more to bring att

by nverno 4y ago

The wording of that sentence threw me off, he wrote 'necessarily' but my mind heard unnecessarily as well. I think the gist of the article is more to bring attention to the technicians who carry out the dangerous work than to assign blame to the industry. I think the author meant, it's dangerous work, but necessary to get it done quickly to be competitive.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Well, I interpreted that a little bit differently. The sentence was: "speed and competitive pressure in the private space race make workplaces necessarily unsafe" I took that as meaning "private space companies are moving too fast and cutting too many corners to keep their workplaces safe". Meaning the "necessarily" part is only because companies are choosing this speed (or, similarly, being forced to move at this speed because other companies are also moving too fast/cutting corners). In other words, I think the author's intent is more damning than you are implying.
- nverno 4y ago
  Right, I meant necessary from the companies perspective. The author was certainly bringing to question the necessity of the industry from the broader perspective, his reference to Gil Scott Heron's song couldn't have made that clearer.
- icambron 4y ago
  This is surely right. You wouldn’t use “necessarily” here to mean, like, “justifiably”. It means that it is a direct consequence of “moving too fast and cutting too many corners”, as opposed to an orthogonal safety lapse that can be shored up without changing the underlying circumstances. Inexorably. Not to say the article is correct about this, of course.
- Maursault 4y ago
  I'm not crazy about the way the author is using "speed" here. The word is not only doing a lot of heavy-lifting, it is ambiguous because rockets can't be slow. "Rushing" or "hurrying" would be less ambiguous yet not as peremptory. I think using "haste" would be unambiguous yet still transmit some imperativeness.

by nverno 4y ago

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Well, I interpreted that a little bit differently. The sentence was: "speed and competitive pressure in the private space race make workplaces necessarily unsafe" I took that as meaning "private space companies are moving too fast and cutting too many corners to keep their workplaces safe". Meaning the "necessarily" part is only because companies are choosing this speed (or, similarly, being forced to move at this speed because other companies are also moving too fast/cutting corners). In other words, I think the author's intent is more damning than you are implying.

nverno 4y ago
Right, I meant necessary from the companies perspective. The author was certainly bringing to question the necessity of the industry from the broader perspective, his reference to Gil Scott Heron's song couldn't have made that clearer.
icambron 4y ago
This is surely right. You wouldn’t use “necessarily” here to mean, like, “justifiably”. It means that it is a direct consequence of “moving too fast and cutting too many corners”, as opposed to an orthogonal safety lapse that can be shored up without changing the underlying circumstances. Inexorably. Not to say the article is correct about this, of course.
Maursault 4y ago
I'm not crazy about the way the author is using "speed" here. The word is not only doing a lot of heavy-lifting, it is ambiguous because rockets can't be slow. "Rushing" or "hurrying" would be less ambiguous yet not as peremptory. I think using "haste" would be unambiguous yet still transmit some imperativeness.