5 ms·

> > The point is that there is a vast range of processes between nothing and aviation. Something closer to aviation or trains rather than total recklessness is

> > The point is that there is a vast range of processes between nothing and aviation. Something closer to aviation or trains rather than total recklessness is probably more fit for safety critical systems that can kill hundreds to thousands of people. To me the point is that there are many things that are used by billions of people and can kill thousands of people per incident when things go wrong, if even one such system has zero safety (for whatever reason ranging from economics to culture) then it makes sense to roll down safety of every other such system to zero as well to pursue quality of life between now and the not so distant moment when something goes wrong

Veserv 3y ago
So if you safety processes made 99% of situations 1,000,000 times safer, but 1% of situations remain high risk you may as well throw out all your processes and incur 1,000,000 times more risk 100% of the time? That is positively absurd. It might make sense to reevaluate what is the most efficient allocation of resources which would result in the greatest holistic safety increase per resource spent, but throwing everything out to reach the lowest common denominator is just straight up nonsense. The only way that makes sense is if you assume a completely uniform risk tolerance, completely uniform mitigation ROI, and you assume the highest risk activity is the true underlying uniform risk tolerance with the other 99% of low risk activities being the outliers. Literally every one of those assumptions is ludicrous.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  You are making up stuff that is not real world, the reality is that billions of people take a plane every year, but the same billions of people also roam into malls, stadiums, parks, buildings and generally areas that are completely vulnerable and unprotected against ill intentioned individuals. It's irrational to use this level of paranoid aviation safety because the same people also do all kinds of stuff that isn't remotely as safe against ill intentioned individuals

Veserv 3y ago

So if you safety processes made 99% of situations 1,000,000 times safer, but 1% of situations remain high risk you may as well throw out all your processes and incur 1,000,000 times more risk 100% of the time? That is positively absurd. It might make sense to reevaluate what is the most efficient allocation of resources which would result in the greatest holistic safety increase per resource spent, but throwing everything out to reach the lowest common denominator is just straight up nonsense. The only way that makes sense is if you assume a completely uniform risk tolerance, completely uniform mitigation ROI, and you assume the highest risk activity is the true underlying uniform risk tolerance with the other 99% of low risk activities being the outliers. Literally every one of those assumptions is ludicrous.

JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
You are making up stuff that is not real world, the reality is that billions of people take a plane every year, but the same billions of people also roam into malls, stadiums, parks, buildings and generally areas that are completely vulnerable and unprotected against ill intentioned individuals. It's irrational to use this level of paranoid aviation safety because the same people also do all kinds of stuff that isn't remotely as safe against ill intentioned individuals