I think the people who are plugged into avherald.com and trying to prove how much they know about aviation are in a worse state, because they're missing the fac

I think the people who are plugged into avherald.com and trying to prove how much they know about aviation are in a worse state, because they're missing the fact that through MCAS and the plug blowout that Boeing's culture really can't be trusted right now. You're very concerned about the fact that you've been studying dendrology and correcting people about the species and nature of the trees when the forest is just on fire. And I can connect this back to problems with our entire management class, which you can't reach when you're just looking at the technical details and frequency of aviation accidents. There's a way to be incurious about the overall sociological and political environment by overly focusing on detailed technical knowledge. And I'm acknowledging that they may be "innocent" in this case (in the sense that these kinds of things are expected across all of commercial aviation). I'm not arguing that I know they're guilty and being completely incurious. But my default hypothesis with Boeing has shifted to guilty until proven innocent, and in the absence of conclusive evidence to assume guilt. That isn't actually incurious, since I'm willing to listen to evidence. But the argument that "things like this happen all the time" isn't actually evidence, that's just a rationalization. And it is okay to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt when they've proved in the past that they don't deserve it. That's just healthy psychological defenses. You move them from the box where they get the benefit of the doubt, over to the box where they don't. To argue nobody should ever do that is to argue that everyone should constantly get manipulated and taken advantage of because this time Lucy isn't going to pull the ball away from Charlie Brown.