4 ms·
This, I really saw nothing there that I would not have done, if I had the money to pay for damages. The floor caving, losing a rack, causing a surge, etc, are s
by figassis 3y ago
This, I really saw nothing there that I would not have done, if I had the money to pay for damages. The floor caving, losing a rack, causing a surge, etc, are small risks comparing to that he was trying to save, and to what he was trying to prove to his team. The only thing that would not be tolerable was having someone die in the process, but then he went under the floor himself. I respect that and really I think the article seems to be written by someone in infra that wants to protect some form of status quo?
- darkwater 3y agoThe fact is that there are "rules" because they are needed to cover all the possible ground. Yeah, one lone operation can skip on almost all the rules and still be successful, but that doesn't prove anything. Rules are needed at scale, to try to cover for unlucky coincidences, people not that smart, unforeseen (by you) consequences etc etc
- figassis 3y agoI guess the point is to find opportunities to do better than the average, not that the average should not exist. That’s often where competitive advantages arise. Most people can’t identify or execute on them because rules.