4 ms·
Only due to a bloody miracle. If people had been in the two nearest seats they were getting sucked straight out. That those seats were coincidentally empty doe
by TylerE 3y ago
Only due to a bloody miracle. If people had been in the two nearest seats they were getting sucked straight out.
That those seats were coincidentally empty doesn't lessen the seriousness of the event.
- lazide 3y agoI mean, it literally does? If 2 people has died, it would have been a more serious event. By definition, no?
- dylan604 3y agoNo. It was a serious event even without casualties. If people had died, it would have been tragic, fatal, or any other adjective. If it wasn't serious, we wouldn't still be discussing it.
- lupusreal 3y agoYours is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people killed in workplaces. I slip on a puddle, but I'm young and nimble so I catch myself. No harm done to me, not a serious incident right? I don't report the puddle. Then another guy comes alone, he's older, his reflexes aren't so good. He bounces his head off the concrete and dies. This is why all workplace safety policies tell you to treat near misses like the real thing. The only difference between them is circumstantial luck.
- westhanover 3y agoThat person is a psychopath. The only good thing is that in a competent safety focused org someone like him would be fired instantly.
- lazide 3y agoBeautiful. And what exactly led you to that insightful psychoanalysis? Especially since I’m not saying it isn’t serious. Just pointing out that 0 < 2 < 189. Which is quite literally true, is it not?
- dylan604 3y agoany number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious. since you seem to like superlatives, any number > 0 is the most serious thing. your product killed 1 person in a failure or 189 in a failure is no less damning. even if your product's failure nearly killed some number > 0 is a serious thing.
- lazide 3y agoSo now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here. I thought it was serious, just less serious than those that actually killed people, because it does show system issues at Boeing related to actually doing safe changes to their planes. Which is a scary operational problem, but at least not a major plane design problem. Which will kill someone (or a lot of someones!) eventually. And got called a psychopath for it, apparently? Which doesn’t seem very polite.
- dylan604 3y ago> So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here. Yes, you've been very confused in this entire thread. No, I did not say what you think I've said. In fact, I stated the exact opposite. You seem to have an agenda and are attempting to read that into this entire thread.