3 ms·
This is a disingenuous argument because it does not respect all the millions of plane passengers who didn't die. You're also mixing up failing hardware parts wi
by selfmodruntime 3y ago
This is a disingenuous argument because it does not respect all the millions of plane passengers who didn't die. You're also mixing up failing hardware parts with failing software, a subject that is famously underregulated in commercial aircraft.
- tsukikage 3y agoConsider: an argument that boils down to "MOST planes didn't fall out of the sky, it's probably fine" might perhaps not be as persuasive as one first imagines.
- sschueller 3y agoThese people didn't die in a freak accident of an unknown issue. The issue was know, it was engineered around using software, corners were cut left and right and then even after one crashed it was not taken out of service. Any properly working oversight that wasn't heavy influenced by conflicts of interest between the FAA and Boeing would have prevent the second plane from flying. The first crash was an accident that could have been prevented the second is proof of what de-regulation and "free market capitalism" looks like.