6 ms·

Of course it makes sense to avoid the 737 MAX. Both at an individual and at a population level. Someone has to win the lottery and it could be you. The fact th

Of course it makes sense to avoid the 737 MAX. Both at an individual and at a population level. Someone has to win the lottery and it could be you. The fact that the probability isn't high doesn't matter when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar. It also makes sense at the population level. It's clear that Congress and the FAA are not capable of overseeing Boeing. And they're too big to even stumble now, never mind fail. The solution is for consumers to punish them. That will get them to fix their problems ASAP.

dangus 3y ago
This whole hubbub is hilarious to me. People are so bad at statistics. You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine. (Of course I am well aware of various car company safety scandals where profit was placed above safety). With US airline travel you have to go back multiple years before you find a single flight-related death on a mainstream commercial jet. Meanwhile everyone I know seems to refuse public transit to the airport because of the “crackheads” and “homeless people” even though their car is way more dangerous than those supposed threats. I have to beg people I travel with to stop assuming that a taxi is going to be a better experience than a train or even a bus. The fact that most Americans are against abolishing the 2nd amendment is also another piece of statistical ignorance. It’s such a no-brainer win on public safety but everyone is drunk on their revolutionary war propaganda from when guns didn’t even have the modern concept of bullets. You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is. I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. For a plane type filter I’d personally use it more for comfort or perhaps CO2 emissions preferences and not safety.
- swader999 3y ago
  Safety stats are lagging indicators.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  For a piece criticizing people for being dumb you get a lot mixed up. Car companies don’t certify their own safety, they have to send them in to the government to be crash tested. Car deaths don’t happen (much) because of mechanical failures, they happen because of crashes. They don’t self-certify their crashworthiness. Most people don’t live somewhere where there’s a subway to the airport in the USA. You can count on one hand (and probably have multiple fingers left over) the number of cities where you have that option. For most people a bus adds significant time to their trip. I can take a 30 minute Uber whenever I want or a God-only-knows-how-long bus ride. Even if it weren’t for the mentally ill (but mostly harmless) passengers, a taxi is in every way a better experience than a bus, and still negligible risk, it just costs more. Even if we could abolish the second amendment that still leaves over 300 million guns here, and this may surprise you but people also sell things illegally. The problem isn’t the law, it’s that people want guns.
  - dangus 3y ago
    There wouldn’t be 300 million guns in citizens’ hands without the law existing in the first place. That’s why the law is dumb. Laws can be changed. There’s no obligation to double down on them. We don’t keep lead pipes legal just because it’s very costly and time-intensive to replace all of them. That’s only an argument to start sooner rather than later. Guns would be a cakewalk to take off the streets compared to lead pipes. For one thing, guns need a consumable to function at all (ammunition). Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. Example source: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-never-be-crash-tested-crash-test-ratings/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne... You can also ask ChatGPT if you want. And then here we go with the carbrain argument “the only option is cars, America is set up for cars.” That was and continues to be an intentional choice. It is not irreversible. It is not something that we are forced to double down on just because that’s been our choice so far. Every time a road is built or a highway is widened that’s an intentional choice that is no less intentional or costly than sending the money toward transit options or pedestrian/cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands had this exact same problem in the 70s and reversed it. Something like 90% of daily trips are under 5 miles, which is less than 30 minutes on a bike. The Netherlands has zero cities that are as populous as the top 10 most populous American cities. “The bus adds significant time” but that’s the thing that people say who never take the bus. Can you work on your laptop while you drive? Can you read while you drive? I can do that on the bus. Sounds like I get time back, and my ride is statistically 10x safer. Also, when it comes to large urban areas, you have to remember that most people live in them. That’s why they’re large urban areas. A New Yorker who never drives anywhere isn't someone who “doesn’t count” because they live in New York and it’s an anomaly. More of America depends on public transit than you think.
- jjav 3y ago
  > You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. No, they don't. Car companies (in the US) must send cars to NHTSA for crash testing. > I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. This is true. And how would you get the FAA to care enough to do that? Boycotts are one way, make them see people care.
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  > People are so bad at statistics. Yes! Your comment confirms that! > You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. False. They do not. > 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine That's not how the probabilities work out. Most of those people are drunk/high, speeding, drowsy, or very old. Then, the car that you drive, how defensive you are, and how much you drive comes into play. My personal chances are astronomically low compared to someone who drives. > You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is. This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with the militarization of the police, the war on drugs, the long history of violence and racism by police, which are totally different issues. > I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. So your solution is to do the thing that has failed over and over and over again? The thing that Congress refuses to do? (fund the FAA). I have no words.
phpisthebest 3y ago
>>when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar. I think it is naive and dangerous to simply blame profit motive for the problems at Boeing, Profit has always been goal at Boeing, and I assume is also a goal of Airbus and every other manufacturer. So if something has changed recently maybe one should look at other corporate priorities that have in reality supplanted profit as the number one goal for many corporations. In fact Maybe a return to profit motive is what we need to resolve the problems
- rsynnott 3y ago
  So, you could certainly argue that the Max is a result of a fixation on _short-term_ profit; it was arguably an attempt to push an existing design maybe a bit too far, rather than taking the short-term hit and designing a modern competitive plane in the size category. The trouble with that is, the payoff period is longer, so if the decision makers are overly fixated on “number goes up”, well.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    I doubt the door bolts issue has anything to do with the type rating hack they did.
- throwaway222577 3y ago
  Boeing’s problem does have to do with making an extra dollar at the expense of other concerns. “Why is Boeing such a shitty corporation?” —- https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-is-boeing-such-a-shitty-corporation https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-is-boeing-such-a-shit...
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    First off, I reject outright everything coming from Robert Reich but I digress... There are some big problems here, first and foremost the idea that because Airbus is owned by governments that makes it some how better. Also they seem to not understand that "Boeing’s four largest shareholders" being Vanguard, and State Street means most likely Boeing largest Shareholders are peoples 40K's and IRA's. Meaning everyday middle class American's Nothing in this standard Reich diatribe against capitalism, in favor of socialist utopia of Workers Unions would solve all problems accurately identifies the actual problems at Boeing I was talking about in my parent comment. Boeing being owned by Vanguard is a problem, but not because Vangaurd seeks to maximize profits, infact in recent years so called "Stakeholder Capitalism" which I believe Reich is also a proponent of has taken over Vangaurd and even more so Black Rock which puts a whole host of things over profits, and IMO this "Stakeholder Capitalism" is the root cause of the problem. It is a cancer in Business.

dangus 3y ago

This whole hubbub is hilarious to me. People are so bad at statistics. You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine. (Of course I am well aware of various car company safety scandals where profit was placed above safety). With US airline travel you have to go back multiple years before you find a single flight-related death on a mainstream commercial jet. Meanwhile everyone I know seems to refuse public transit to the airport because of the “crackheads” and “homeless people” even though their car is way more dangerous than those supposed threats. I have to beg people I travel with to stop assuming that a taxi is going to be a better experience than a train or even a bus. The fact that most Americans are against abolishing the 2nd amendment is also another piece of statistical ignorance. It’s such a no-brainer win on public safety but everyone is drunk on their revolutionary war propaganda from when guns didn’t even have the modern concept of bullets. You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is. I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. For a plane type filter I’d personally use it more for comfort or perhaps CO2 emissions preferences and not safety.

swader999 3y ago
Safety stats are lagging indicators.
mattmaroon 3y ago
For a piece criticizing people for being dumb you get a lot mixed up. Car companies don’t certify their own safety, they have to send them in to the government to be crash tested. Car deaths don’t happen (much) because of mechanical failures, they happen because of crashes. They don’t self-certify their crashworthiness. Most people don’t live somewhere where there’s a subway to the airport in the USA. You can count on one hand (and probably have multiple fingers left over) the number of cities where you have that option. For most people a bus adds significant time to their trip. I can take a 30 minute Uber whenever I want or a God-only-knows-how-long bus ride. Even if it weren’t for the mentally ill (but mostly harmless) passengers, a taxi is in every way a better experience than a bus, and still negligible risk, it just costs more. Even if we could abolish the second amendment that still leaves over 300 million guns here, and this may surprise you but people also sell things illegally. The problem isn’t the law, it’s that people want guns.
- dangus 3y ago
  There wouldn’t be 300 million guns in citizens’ hands without the law existing in the first place. That’s why the law is dumb. Laws can be changed. There’s no obligation to double down on them. We don’t keep lead pipes legal just because it’s very costly and time-intensive to replace all of them. That’s only an argument to start sooner rather than later. Guns would be a cakewalk to take off the streets compared to lead pipes. For one thing, guns need a consumable to function at all (ammunition). Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. Example source: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-never-be-crash-tested-crash-test-ratings/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne... You can also ask ChatGPT if you want. And then here we go with the carbrain argument “the only option is cars, America is set up for cars.” That was and continues to be an intentional choice. It is not irreversible. It is not something that we are forced to double down on just because that’s been our choice so far. Every time a road is built or a highway is widened that’s an intentional choice that is no less intentional or costly than sending the money toward transit options or pedestrian/cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands had this exact same problem in the 70s and reversed it. Something like 90% of daily trips are under 5 miles, which is less than 30 minutes on a bike. The Netherlands has zero cities that are as populous as the top 10 most populous American cities. “The bus adds significant time” but that’s the thing that people say who never take the bus. Can you work on your laptop while you drive? Can you read while you drive? I can do that on the bus. Sounds like I get time back, and my ride is statistically 10x safer. Also, when it comes to large urban areas, you have to remember that most people live in them. That’s why they’re large urban areas. A New Yorker who never drives anywhere isn't someone who “doesn’t count” because they live in New York and it’s an anomaly. More of America depends on public transit than you think.
jjav 3y ago
> You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. No, they don't. Car companies (in the US) must send cars to NHTSA for crash testing. > I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. This is true. And how would you get the FAA to care enough to do that? Boycotts are one way, make them see people care.
light_hue_1 3y ago
> People are so bad at statistics. Yes! Your comment confirms that! > You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. False. They do not. > 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine That's not how the probabilities work out. Most of those people are drunk/high, speeding, drowsy, or very old. Then, the car that you drive, how defensive you are, and how much you drive comes into play. My personal chances are astronomically low compared to someone who drives. > You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is. This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with the militarization of the police, the war on drugs, the long history of violence and racism by police, which are totally different issues. > I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. So your solution is to do the thing that has failed over and over and over again? The thing that Congress refuses to do? (fund the FAA). I have no words.

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar. I think it is naive and dangerous to simply blame profit motive for the problems at Boeing, Profit has always been goal at Boeing, and I assume is also a goal of Airbus and every other manufacturer. So if something has changed recently maybe one should look at other corporate priorities that have in reality supplanted profit as the number one goal for many corporations. In fact Maybe a return to profit motive is what we need to resolve the problems

rsynnott 3y ago
So, you could certainly argue that the Max is a result of a fixation on _short-term_ profit; it was arguably an attempt to push an existing design maybe a bit too far, rather than taking the short-term hit and designing a modern competitive plane in the size category. The trouble with that is, the payoff period is longer, so if the decision makers are overly fixated on “number goes up”, well.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  I doubt the door bolts issue has anything to do with the type rating hack they did.
throwaway222577 3y ago
Boeing’s problem does have to do with making an extra dollar at the expense of other concerns. “Why is Boeing such a shitty corporation?” —- https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-is-boeing-such-a-shitty-corporation https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-is-boeing-such-a-shit...
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  First off, I reject outright everything coming from Robert Reich but I digress... There are some big problems here, first and foremost the idea that because Airbus is owned by governments that makes it some how better. Also they seem to not understand that "Boeing’s four largest shareholders" being Vanguard, and State Street means most likely Boeing largest Shareholders are peoples 40K's and IRA's. Meaning everyday middle class American's Nothing in this standard Reich diatribe against capitalism, in favor of socialist utopia of Workers Unions would solve all problems accurately identifies the actual problems at Boeing I was talking about in my parent comment. Boeing being owned by Vanguard is a problem, but not because Vangaurd seeks to maximize profits, infact in recent years so called "Stakeholder Capitalism" which I believe Reich is also a proponent of has taken over Vangaurd and even more so Black Rock which puts a whole host of things over profits, and IMO this "Stakeholder Capitalism" is the root cause of the problem. It is a cancer in Business.