7 ms·

John Oliver recently did an episode on the Boeing shitstorm. And while I would take anything a comedian says with a large grain of salt, the undercover staff in

by elric 3y ago

John Oliver recently did an episode on the Boeing shitstorm. And while I would take anything a comedian says with a large grain of salt, the undercover staff interviews seemed pretty damning. I'm not sure if it's criminal negligence on Boeing's part, but it seems pretty obvious that engineering excellence isn't on the top of their minds.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> the undercover staff interviews seemed pretty damning This is the least credible possible evidence, because shows like that have a long history of doing selective editing or purposely taking things out of context. Sometimes they don't have to because what they're reporting is real, but you can't tell that one way or the other just by watching the segment.
- Zetaphor 3y ago
  I was unaware of these accusations, do you have have any supporting information?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    They're comedy shows. They send someone to record an hour-long interview but the whole segment is 5 minutes long and the clip they air is only a few seconds. Selective editing is built into the format, they don't spend the airtime to run the full interview and their purpose is to choose the short clip which has the most comedy value or makes the target look bad.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      There was not a single interview done by LWTN for that segment, they took those from other sources. And the segment was pretty good actually, covered all the major points and didn't have any major errors. Actually, it is light years ahead of what other news outlets reported. Surey it is not on the same level as an audit report, but that is not its purpose. It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher. Re: selection of statements, the reports in Fukushima and Cherbobyl do the same. The point is to showcase the underlying issues with concrete examples and statements. Nothing wrong with that per-se. And in th LWTN segment, it was not done in bad faith, it is bot FOX news after all.
      - BuckYeah 3y ago
        Well put. Most skeptics these days are borderline conspiracists when it comes to delivering their opinions. The person above only needed to say, “trust but verify comedic claims” but instead they went down the all too common road of dogwhistling to other “skeptics.” I’m confident that quite a lot of John Oliver’s claims are verifiable (I have spent a lot of time doing my own research on the claims after watching the show). Not saying I’m a brilliant investigator but wanted to offer an opposing opinion. Blatantly sowing distrust is exactly the kind of behavior a true skeptic hopes to avoid.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher. This is the danger in it. They pick someone they don't like and basically do a hit piece. Now sometimes the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism, and then if you try to get the real story, the real story is that the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism. But then they'll run a segment in the same style where the target is just someone from the outgroup of the show's target audience.
        hef19898 3y ago
        [flagged]
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        [flagged]
        hef19898 3y ago
        As I said, their reporting has been scrutinzed a lot. Including a multi-million dollar defamition suite brought by this coal magnate. Guess what, the show didn't get it wrong. You don'z have to like the humor or bias of the show. Factually so, so far, their reporting was always as correct as possible at the time of filming. Or do you have proof otherwise, retractions they did, law suites they lost, that kind of stuff?
    - Lendal 3y ago
      They do that because nobody wants to look at hundreds of dead bodies or talk to grieving widows, or search through rubble for broken airplane parts or data recorders. That's not so funny. Just because comedy shows focus on entertainment value doesn't mean there's no evidence. They have a different focus from investigators or courts, but in democratic countries, the funds to run investigations come from politicians and public outcry, and that comes from the people actually giving a sh*t about it. So they do perform a function.
- loktarogar 3y ago
  "Shows like that" or this show in particular?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Shows using the format where they do an interview and then selectively air parts of it rather than the whole thing. In general The Daily Show and its offspring -- not the interviews that happen in front of the audience in the studio, the ones for the pre-recorded segments.
    - loktarogar 3y ago
      Have you seen this show at all? It generally dedicates the bulk of its episode to a single story and goes in depth. Not saying this can't be happening, and there's always going to be stuff left out in even a 30 minute timeframe, but it tries to educate on the "complete picture" with nuanced points on a single issue per ep
      - Voultapher 3y ago
        With going in depth you mean: 1. Continuously make fun of superficial attributes and mannerisms 2. Selectively present a biased narrative without opposition 3. Push said narrative with ad hominem attacks and jokes about someones' appearance Even when I agree with the narrative, the mechanisms by which the audience is persuaded feels quite disingenuous to me. Look at the episodes he did about Trump in 2016, the host spends half the time making fun of small hands, when you could fill hours with Trump's fascism. My perspective is based on episodes I watched in 2016. The small bits I've seen from him and other similar formats since then suggest it is still this way.
        hef19898 3y ago
        It is a comedy show after all. One that tackles very serious subjects in ahumerous way. Doesn make the reporting wrong. And, this show in particular, gets the fact right almost all of the time. And it provided more context and details on the whole Boeing saga than any other news source I have seen or read so far since the door plug blew out. Heck, going back to the 737 Max crashes I would be hard pushed to find main stream media reporting that was, factually and regarding context, better.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The recorded comments were from the 787 days, and LWTN didn't produce those recordings themselves.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    That doesn't really tell you anything. The way the format works is they take a large amount of material and pare it down to whatever they can find to make the target look stupid or nefarious. It works the same whether they were holding the camera or not. Also: > Sometimes they don't have to because what they're reporting is real, but you can't tell that one way or the other just by watching the segment.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      As someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. Not like, say, Fox News with its usual defwnc ein court that boils down to "who in his right mind would take us for a serious news outlet employing journalists".
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > As someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. You're defending this particular story when I never claimed it was necessarily false. > By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. That is how "out of context" works. They don't affirmatively lie, they lie through omission. They have lawyers who know how defamation laws work.
        hef19898 3y ago
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  So how about the Seattle Times? https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-congressional-lobbyist-tries-to-discredit-ntsb-testimony/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein... Rather than fix their airplanes Boeing is trying to discredit the NTSB.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    I made a general comment about the format and then all of the people who remove any nuance (i.e. can't distinguish between a criticism of the format and a criticism of the story) started posting replies defending the story even though the possibility of the story being accurate was explicitly admitted in the original comment.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >This is the least credible possible evidence How about the U.S. government opening a criminal inquiry that corroborates what they were reporting?
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    That's not evidence at all; there was going to be an investigation no matter what. That said, I was greatly amused by this in the article: > “In an event like this, it’s normal for the D.O.J. to be conducting an investigation,” Alaska Airlines said in a statement. “We are fully cooperating and do not believe we are a target of the investigation.” > Boeing had no comment.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    A criminal inquiry that concluded with only a $500k fine, because: > "We were unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the company's actions caused the mine collapse," said David Barlow, the U.S. Attorney for Utah. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148319836/mining-company-pleads-guilty-for-2007-utah-mine-disaster https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148319836...
    - int_19h 3y ago
      "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar to match. Certainly way higher than would be expected of even the most respectable newspaper, for example.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        It's a reasonable bar to ask for before you start demonizing someone in front of millions of people. But let's be honest, Oliver didn't hate Murray because of the mine disaster, he hated Murray for mining coal. The mine disaster (responsibility for which wasn't even proven) was all LWT could dig up. And the audience will pretty much hate anyone Oliver tells them to hate. That's why they watch - to enjoy their Two Minutes Hate.
ulfw 3y ago
Those interviews the comedian has shown are a decade old from Al Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
- DANmode 3y ago
  Aside from other, more direct points: the C-Suite of an airline isn't riding its planes.
  - jen20 3y ago
    I’ve personally run into both Richard Branson flying Virgin Atlantic and Oscar Munoz flying United. The C Suite of an airline is likely using it plenty.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your 'scare' 'quotes'. Qatar also famously got fired by Airbus as a customer and refused to take 787s built in South Carolina. It's not like there are a lot of other options for them.
nebula8804 3y ago
John Oliver is funny until he covers a segment that you have spent a lot of personal time researching then it becomes shocking when you realize that he selectively edits things to craft a certain narrative in the viewers mind. I also saw this with Trevor Noah when Bernie Sanders was running. I was a volunteer tasked with digging up lots of old videos of him for promotional material and I was shocked to see some of the videos I found aired on the Daily Show but deceptively cut to make him look like a grumpy mean old man when if you watched the whole clip it would show the opposite.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  Yes, that is also true for the other side of the political spectrum. Would you believe it: all humans have biases?
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    Is there a right wing comedy show that is in the format of John Oliver or Daily Show? Closest I can think of is Babylon Bee but they produce (unfunny) original parodies.
    - krapp 3y ago
      I've seen a couple of attempts - like 1/2 hour news hour - but they're all terminally unfunny. The problem is punching up vs punching down. Left-wing humor tends to make a mockery of power and social injustice, whereas right-wing comedy tends to make a mockery of groups and ideas that most of society has sympathy for. The right is simply too cruel to be funny.
    - chgs 3y ago
      A left wing show that spent its time attacking Bernie Sanders?
      - mistermann 3y ago
        It would make sense if it was more so a neoliberal show posing as a left wing show, comedy is one of the easiest ways to divide up a public so they can be conquered.
renegade-otter 3y ago
We live in a timeline where a comedian will actually point to more facts than, say, a "serious" anchor like Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, who will just blatantly make stuff up. "I am just asking questions".
- 7952 3y ago
  There is an honesty in humour.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    We have a saying in Italy, "Pulcinella while laughing and joking always says the truth". Pulcinella is the carnival character from Naples and he's a joker.
- mcv 3y ago
  Because Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are not real reporters, they just play them on TV. They're "angertainers", stoking anger in their viewers as a form of entertainment. The anger doesn't have to be based on facts. Their viewers come to be angry, and they get what they want.
reyleu6 3y ago
Engineers stopped running such firms long ago cause they are totally inept at financial engineering. Its the financial engineers who run things, and you can bet right now whatever happens they will get the govt to bail them out. The culture will only change when financial engineering is reined in or part of tech/engineering education. Until then John Oliver will have a never ending supply of such stories from helpless engineers who are so out of control over anything they run to stand up comedians to cry about their problems.
- hef19898 3y ago
  As a half-engineer myself, I have to say this: people need to be reminded that it was engineers that were at the highest levels, CEO and down, behind Dieselgate and, yes, the issues at Boeing as well. Engineers are not per-se better at business ethics or corporate governance. Greed is universal.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Dieselgate was akin to a student learning the whole geography syllabus just before the exam, then getting a top score and claiming to be good at geography. Just because you learnt the exact topics that were to be examined doesn't mean you're good at the whole subject. Likewise, those diesel cars were very good at the exact things that were tested, and terrible at everything else. They were literally engineered to the exact test syllabus. Yet we somehow don't call the student a cheater. In my view, in both cases, the shortcoming is with the test/syllabus designer. The test topics need to be not announced beforehand, and the sylabus needs to not be rigid and narrower than the field in the real world.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      That is, lets be generous, an interesting take. Fact is, VW engines had a mode recognizing a test and adopted AdBlue and fuel mixture to meet emission standards. On the road, these engines ran dirty. That was explicitely stated to be illegal in the applicable laws. It was all the other brands that played, as it turned out also illegal, games with temp windows and such. Blaming this on regulators is putting this while story on its head.
api 3y ago
Only comedians can tell the truth sometimes. That was the classical role of the jester in some monarchies. They were the only person who could openly criticize the king without retribution (in theory).

by elric 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> the undercover staff interviews seemed pretty damning This is the least credible possible evidence, because shows like that have a long history of doing selective editing or purposely taking things out of context. Sometimes they don't have to because what they're reporting is real, but you can't tell that one way or the other just by watching the segment.

Zetaphor 3y ago
I was unaware of these accusations, do you have have any supporting information?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  They're comedy shows. They send someone to record an hour-long interview but the whole segment is 5 minutes long and the clip they air is only a few seconds. Selective editing is built into the format, they don't spend the airtime to run the full interview and their purpose is to choose the short clip which has the most comedy value or makes the target look bad.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    There was not a single interview done by LWTN for that segment, they took those from other sources. And the segment was pretty good actually, covered all the major points and didn't have any major errors. Actually, it is light years ahead of what other news outlets reported. Surey it is not on the same level as an audit report, but that is not its purpose. It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher. Re: selection of statements, the reports in Fukushima and Cherbobyl do the same. The point is to showcase the underlying issues with concrete examples and statements. Nothing wrong with that per-se. And in th LWTN segment, it was not done in bad faith, it is bot FOX news after all.
    - BuckYeah 3y ago
      Well put. Most skeptics these days are borderline conspiracists when it comes to delivering their opinions. The person above only needed to say, “trust but verify comedic claims” but instead they went down the all too common road of dogwhistling to other “skeptics.” I’m confident that quite a lot of John Oliver’s claims are verifiable (I have spent a lot of time doing my own research on the claims after watching the show). Not saying I’m a brilliant investigator but wanted to offer an opposing opinion. Blatantly sowing distrust is exactly the kind of behavior a true skeptic hopes to avoid.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > It is much closer to a comprehensive executive summary of an incident report than anything I have ever seen in media elsewher. This is the danger in it. They pick someone they don't like and basically do a hit piece. Now sometimes the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism, and then if you try to get the real story, the real story is that the target is actually bad and deserving of the criticism. But then they'll run a segment in the same style where the target is just someone from the outgroup of the show's target audience.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        [flagged]
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        [flagged]
        hef19898 3y ago
        As I said, their reporting has been scrutinzed a lot. Including a multi-million dollar defamition suite brought by this coal magnate. Guess what, the show didn't get it wrong. You don'z have to like the humor or bias of the show. Factually so, so far, their reporting was always as correct as possible at the time of filming. Or do you have proof otherwise, retractions they did, law suites they lost, that kind of stuff?
  - Lendal 3y ago
    They do that because nobody wants to look at hundreds of dead bodies or talk to grieving widows, or search through rubble for broken airplane parts or data recorders. That's not so funny. Just because comedy shows focus on entertainment value doesn't mean there's no evidence. They have a different focus from investigators or courts, but in democratic countries, the funds to run investigations come from politicians and public outcry, and that comes from the people actually giving a sh*t about it. So they do perform a function.
loktarogar 3y ago
"Shows like that" or this show in particular?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Shows using the format where they do an interview and then selectively air parts of it rather than the whole thing. In general The Daily Show and its offspring -- not the interviews that happen in front of the audience in the studio, the ones for the pre-recorded segments.
  - loktarogar 3y ago
    Have you seen this show at all? It generally dedicates the bulk of its episode to a single story and goes in depth. Not saying this can't be happening, and there's always going to be stuff left out in even a 30 minute timeframe, but it tries to educate on the "complete picture" with nuanced points on a single issue per ep
    - Voultapher 3y ago
      With going in depth you mean: 1. Continuously make fun of superficial attributes and mannerisms 2. Selectively present a biased narrative without opposition 3. Push said narrative with ad hominem attacks and jokes about someones' appearance Even when I agree with the narrative, the mechanisms by which the audience is persuaded feels quite disingenuous to me. Look at the episodes he did about Trump in 2016, the host spends half the time making fun of small hands, when you could fill hours with Trump's fascism. My perspective is based on episodes I watched in 2016. The small bits I've seen from him and other similar formats since then suggest it is still this way.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        It is a comedy show after all. One that tackles very serious subjects in ahumerous way. Doesn make the reporting wrong. And, this show in particular, gets the fact right almost all of the time. And it provided more context and details on the whole Boeing saga than any other news source I have seen or read so far since the door plug blew out. Heck, going back to the 737 Max crashes I would be hard pushed to find main stream media reporting that was, factually and regarding context, better.
hef19898 3y ago
The recorded comments were from the 787 days, and LWTN didn't produce those recordings themselves.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  That doesn't really tell you anything. The way the format works is they take a large amount of material and pare it down to whatever they can find to make the target look stupid or nefarious. It works the same whether they were holding the camera or not. Also: > Sometimes they don't have to because what they're reporting is real, but you can't tell that one way or the other just by watching the segment.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    As someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. Not like, say, Fox News with its usual defwnc ein court that boils down to "who in his right mind would take us for a serious news outlet employing journalists".
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > As someone who read the official reports on the B737 MAX and the 787 battery fires and who is from the industry, I can tell you that your accusations are completely unfounded in reality. You're defending this particular story when I never claimed it was necessarily false. > By the way, LWTN was not once found to have wrong reporting on any of their subjects. Last party to pull them to court over it was this cial guy. And it was found that the reporting was factually correct. That is how "out of context" works. They don't affirmatively lie, they lie through omission. They have lawyers who know how defamation laws work.
      - hef19898 3y ago
inferiorhuman 3y ago
So how about the Seattle Times? https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-congressional-lobbyist-tries-to-discredit-ntsb-testimony/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein... Rather than fix their airplanes Boeing is trying to discredit the NTSB.
ShamelessC 3y ago
[flagged]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  I made a general comment about the format and then all of the people who remove any nuance (i.e. can't distinguish between a criticism of the format and a criticism of the story) started posting replies defending the story even though the possibility of the story being accurate was explicitly admitted in the original comment.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
>This is the least credible possible evidence How about the U.S. government opening a criminal inquiry that corroborates what they were reporting?
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  That's not evidence at all; there was going to be an investigation no matter what. That said, I was greatly amused by this in the article: > “In an event like this, it’s normal for the D.O.J. to be conducting an investigation,” Alaska Airlines said in a statement. “We are fully cooperating and do not believe we are a target of the investigation.” > Boeing had no comment.
- leereeves 3y ago
  A criminal inquiry that concluded with only a $500k fine, because: > "We were unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the company's actions caused the mine collapse," said David Barlow, the U.S. Attorney for Utah. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148319836/mining-company-pleads-guilty-for-2007-utah-mine-disaster https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148319836...
  - int_19h 3y ago
    "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar to match. Certainly way higher than would be expected of even the most respectable newspaper, for example.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      It's a reasonable bar to ask for before you start demonizing someone in front of millions of people. But let's be honest, Oliver didn't hate Murray because of the mine disaster, he hated Murray for mining coal. The mine disaster (responsibility for which wasn't even proven) was all LWT could dig up. And the audience will pretty much hate anyone Oliver tells them to hate. That's why they watch - to enjoy their Two Minutes Hate.

ulfw 3y ago

Those interviews the comedian has shown are a decade old from Al Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

DANmode 3y ago
Aside from other, more direct points: the C-Suite of an airline isn't riding its planes.
- jen20 3y ago
  I’ve personally run into both Richard Branson flying Virgin Atlantic and Oscar Munoz flying United. The C Suite of an airline is likely using it plenty.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your 'scare' 'quotes'. Qatar also famously got fired by Airbus as a customer and refused to take 787s built in South Carolina. It's not like there are a lot of other options for them.

nebula8804 3y ago

John Oliver is funny until he covers a segment that you have spent a lot of personal time researching then it becomes shocking when you realize that he selectively edits things to craft a certain narrative in the viewers mind. I also saw this with Trevor Noah when Bernie Sanders was running. I was a volunteer tasked with digging up lots of old videos of him for promotional material and I was shocked to see some of the videos I found aired on the Daily Show but deceptively cut to make him look like a grumpy mean old man when if you watched the whole clip it would show the opposite.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
Yes, that is also true for the other side of the political spectrum. Would you believe it: all humans have biases?
- nebula8804 3y ago
  Is there a right wing comedy show that is in the format of John Oliver or Daily Show? Closest I can think of is Babylon Bee but they produce (unfunny) original parodies.
  - krapp 3y ago
    I've seen a couple of attempts - like 1/2 hour news hour - but they're all terminally unfunny. The problem is punching up vs punching down. Left-wing humor tends to make a mockery of power and social injustice, whereas right-wing comedy tends to make a mockery of groups and ideas that most of society has sympathy for. The right is simply too cruel to be funny.
  - chgs 3y ago
    A left wing show that spent its time attacking Bernie Sanders?
    - mistermann 3y ago
      It would make sense if it was more so a neoliberal show posing as a left wing show, comedy is one of the easiest ways to divide up a public so they can be conquered.

renegade-otter 3y ago

We live in a timeline where a comedian will actually point to more facts than, say, a "serious" anchor like Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, who will just blatantly make stuff up. "I am just asking questions".

7952 3y ago
There is an honesty in humour.
- epolanski 3y ago
  We have a saying in Italy, "Pulcinella while laughing and joking always says the truth". Pulcinella is the carnival character from Naples and he's a joker.
mcv 3y ago
Because Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are not real reporters, they just play them on TV. They're "angertainers", stoking anger in their viewers as a form of entertainment. The anger doesn't have to be based on facts. Their viewers come to be angry, and they get what they want.

reyleu6 3y ago

Engineers stopped running such firms long ago cause they are totally inept at financial engineering. Its the financial engineers who run things, and you can bet right now whatever happens they will get the govt to bail them out. The culture will only change when financial engineering is reined in or part of tech/engineering education. Until then John Oliver will have a never ending supply of such stories from helpless engineers who are so out of control over anything they run to stand up comedians to cry about their problems.

hef19898 3y ago
As a half-engineer myself, I have to say this: people need to be reminded that it was engineers that were at the highest levels, CEO and down, behind Dieselgate and, yes, the issues at Boeing as well. Engineers are not per-se better at business ethics or corporate governance. Greed is universal.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Dieselgate was akin to a student learning the whole geography syllabus just before the exam, then getting a top score and claiming to be good at geography. Just because you learnt the exact topics that were to be examined doesn't mean you're good at the whole subject. Likewise, those diesel cars were very good at the exact things that were tested, and terrible at everything else. They were literally engineered to the exact test syllabus. Yet we somehow don't call the student a cheater. In my view, in both cases, the shortcoming is with the test/syllabus designer. The test topics need to be not announced beforehand, and the sylabus needs to not be rigid and narrower than the field in the real world.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That is, lets be generous, an interesting take. Fact is, VW engines had a mode recognizing a test and adopted AdBlue and fuel mixture to meet emission standards. On the road, these engines ran dirty. That was explicitely stated to be illegal in the applicable laws. It was all the other brands that played, as it turned out also illegal, games with temp windows and such. Blaming this on regulators is putting this while story on its head.

api 3y ago

Only comedians can tell the truth sometimes. That was the classical role of the jester in some monarchies. They were the only person who could openly criticize the king without retribution (in theory).