4 ms·

This 'controlled burn' issue is a general principle in risk management as well, where you respond to minor issues so as to not let them pile up into a tinderbox

This 'controlled burn' issue is a general principle in risk management as well, where you respond to minor issues so as to not let them pile up into a tinderbox inferno. Risk aversion isn't prudent, ethical, or professional either. It's a source of false conflict whose purpose is to centralize the objector so that they can direct and manage a proposed change. This is from someone who has been working in security for longer than most. It's something I find repulsive about some of the people who have joined the field, where once it was hackers who used elevated competence to judiciously take risks, and now it's authoritarian personalities who use affected fear and appeals to uncertainty under the guise of safety to position themselves as gatekeepers. The same is true for government policy on controlled burns. Nobody ever gets fired over mega wildfires, even though their gatekeeping is the direct cause of them.

anoncow 3y ago
I think the equivalent analogy here is to prevent a big issue from occurring, management creates small issues that it can control. Or do I have it wrong? If you handle small issues, it’s similar to handling small fires and not letting the small fires eat away at a certain portion of the forest.
- thanatos519 3y ago
  Right. The small issues are minor outages causing customer inconvenience and/or lost revenue. The big issues are major pwnage and loss of everything because you were afraid of causing small issues while fixing things.
  - anoncow 3y ago
    That makes a lot of sense. By allowing the teams to fix things quickly and break things, management creates an environment where people can continuously learn how to handle fires and this makes them ready to handle bigger fires and also prevent bigger fires.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      There is some middle ground though. I don't want my {critical infrastructure} to "fix things quickly and break things" at a critical moment, where I would have really needed that system. Those things can be scheduled and announced, so I can plan ahead and expect outages at that time.
      - nordsieck 3y ago
        > There is some middle ground though. Sure. But the problem is that there are incentives to keep pushing the middle ground closer towards eventual system collapse. It's never the right time to see if the backup generators can take the building load. But during real emergencies, it's amazing how common it is for the backup generators to not work for one reason or another.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "It's never the right time to see if the backup generators can take the building load. " How about a test outside normal working hours? It is possible, to meassure the power output before and then plug in enough stuff, that draws roughly the same. But yes, it is more convenient to not do it and continue buisness as usual and hope for the best. My point is, that in most cases, you can test and fix critical stuff and also fix problems created by your fixes, if you make it an important issue and plan accordingly. However, I did not say it is necessarily easy.
- seadan83 3y ago
  The analogy might not fully hold. The risk is that the controlled burn gets out of control. IIRC there was a case last year in Nevada where a controlled burn turned into an extremely large fire. A better analogy might be safety drills at Nuclear power plants. Done well, it helps ensure safety protocols are in place that can mitigate a big disaster, done badly, and you have Chernobyl. > not letting the small fires eat away at a certain portion of the forest Funny enough, small fires are very healthy for many forests and even _necessary_ for some. For example, Some trees do not drop seeds until there are fires. EG: "Giant sequoias are the largest trees on Earth. They can grow for more than 3,000 years. But without fire, they cannot reproduce." [1] Further, the clearing of underbrush can be good for animals as they can move around more easily, hunt, gather, etc.. [2] Though, what is really not good for them are the mega-fires that burn so hot that it burns trees & everything 100% up to the top of the tree (killing it) and also several feet underground. So, perhaps another analogy is that every year is like adding gunpowder into the forests. Setting this alight every now and then is good, but let it build up too long and it becomes a bomb. Areas that have burned in the PNW tend to look really healthy 1 to 3 years later. On the other hand, areas that have "over" burned in California with mega fires are drastically impacted, as if a nuclear bomb had went off and killed everything. At the end of the day, prescribed burns is an amazing tool to create a defensive patch work of lower-combustion areas that help prevent fires from becoming mega-fires that are super-impactful to everyone and everything. [1] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-grow/15094/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-gro... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/explainer-how-wildfires-impact-wildlife-their-habitat https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/explainer-how-wildfires...
  - StrangeATractor 3y ago
    In many of the burns which I've read about that get out of control, it's because the agency doing it (USFS, usually) had a plan to do it on that date and they didn't consider the actual conditions on the ground before they lit up. Example: An Oregon sheriff arrested a USFS employee supervising a burn that got out of hand and torched private property. The FS was crying foul and saying it was an act of god, but there were warnings for burning that day because they conditions were so unfavorable (the county may have had an outright burn ban). The only reason the FS employee decided to burn is because that's what he was supposed to do that day. And he was legally okay, since it was federal property, but then it got onto private property next door... For some reason the FS in particular has this problem. Most of them are alright people but the institution and culture needs serious reform.
hinkley 3y ago
I think environmental policy people have a lot to learn from the philosophy and ideas in preventative medicine (and honestly a few ideas could probably flow the other direction as well). These two groups need to sit down and compare notes. Stitches suck, but they’re better than dying of cancer, or gangrene.
eftychis 3y ago
Disagree partly. Here we are preventing actively the natural circles of small fires in the lifecycle of a forest. We bring up that we need to introduce them at least in a controlled manner. Some people say no because xyz. Well these people need to cover the incalculable sometime damages that causes.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  The difference is accountability. If you start the burn, you’re responsible. If 100 people build homes that create a hazard, nobody is responsible.

anoncow 3y ago

I think the equivalent analogy here is to prevent a big issue from occurring, management creates small issues that it can control. Or do I have it wrong? If you handle small issues, it’s similar to handling small fires and not letting the small fires eat away at a certain portion of the forest.

thanatos519 3y ago
Right. The small issues are minor outages causing customer inconvenience and/or lost revenue. The big issues are major pwnage and loss of everything because you were afraid of causing small issues while fixing things.
- anoncow 3y ago
  That makes a lot of sense. By allowing the teams to fix things quickly and break things, management creates an environment where people can continuously learn how to handle fires and this makes them ready to handle bigger fires and also prevent bigger fires.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    There is some middle ground though. I don't want my {critical infrastructure} to "fix things quickly and break things" at a critical moment, where I would have really needed that system. Those things can be scheduled and announced, so I can plan ahead and expect outages at that time.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      > There is some middle ground though. Sure. But the problem is that there are incentives to keep pushing the middle ground closer towards eventual system collapse. It's never the right time to see if the backup generators can take the building load. But during real emergencies, it's amazing how common it is for the backup generators to not work for one reason or another.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "It's never the right time to see if the backup generators can take the building load. " How about a test outside normal working hours? It is possible, to meassure the power output before and then plug in enough stuff, that draws roughly the same. But yes, it is more convenient to not do it and continue buisness as usual and hope for the best. My point is, that in most cases, you can test and fix critical stuff and also fix problems created by your fixes, if you make it an important issue and plan accordingly. However, I did not say it is necessarily easy.
seadan83 3y ago
The analogy might not fully hold. The risk is that the controlled burn gets out of control. IIRC there was a case last year in Nevada where a controlled burn turned into an extremely large fire. A better analogy might be safety drills at Nuclear power plants. Done well, it helps ensure safety protocols are in place that can mitigate a big disaster, done badly, and you have Chernobyl. > not letting the small fires eat away at a certain portion of the forest Funny enough, small fires are very healthy for many forests and even _necessary_ for some. For example, Some trees do not drop seeds until there are fires. EG: "Giant sequoias are the largest trees on Earth. They can grow for more than 3,000 years. But without fire, they cannot reproduce." [1] Further, the clearing of underbrush can be good for animals as they can move around more easily, hunt, gather, etc.. [2] Though, what is really not good for them are the mega-fires that burn so hot that it burns trees & everything 100% up to the top of the tree (killing it) and also several feet underground. So, perhaps another analogy is that every year is like adding gunpowder into the forests. Setting this alight every now and then is good, but let it build up too long and it becomes a bomb. Areas that have burned in the PNW tend to look really healthy 1 to 3 years later. On the other hand, areas that have "over" burned in California with mega fires are drastically impacted, as if a nuclear bomb had went off and killed everything. At the end of the day, prescribed burns is an amazing tool to create a defensive patch work of lower-combustion areas that help prevent fires from becoming mega-fires that are super-impactful to everyone and everything. [1] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-grow/15094/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-gro... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/explainer-how-wildfires-impact-wildlife-their-habitat https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/explainer-how-wildfires...
- StrangeATractor 3y ago
  In many of the burns which I've read about that get out of control, it's because the agency doing it (USFS, usually) had a plan to do it on that date and they didn't consider the actual conditions on the ground before they lit up. Example: An Oregon sheriff arrested a USFS employee supervising a burn that got out of hand and torched private property. The FS was crying foul and saying it was an act of god, but there were warnings for burning that day because they conditions were so unfavorable (the county may have had an outright burn ban). The only reason the FS employee decided to burn is because that's what he was supposed to do that day. And he was legally okay, since it was federal property, but then it got onto private property next door... For some reason the FS in particular has this problem. Most of them are alright people but the institution and culture needs serious reform.

hinkley 3y ago

I think environmental policy people have a lot to learn from the philosophy and ideas in preventative medicine (and honestly a few ideas could probably flow the other direction as well). These two groups need to sit down and compare notes. Stitches suck, but they’re better than dying of cancer, or gangrene.

eftychis 3y ago

Disagree partly. Here we are preventing actively the natural circles of small fires in the lifecycle of a forest. We bring up that we need to introduce them at least in a controlled manner. Some people say no because xyz. Well these people need to cover the incalculable sometime damages that causes.

Spooky23 3y ago
The difference is accountability. If you start the burn, you’re responsible. If 100 people build homes that create a hazard, nobody is responsible.