5 ms·

Tbh, I feel like you wouldn't get much benefit avoiding Boeing specifically - but would be interesting to see the data and be proven wrong!

spacecadet 2y ago
I think, like me, this is about sending a message to Boeing.
nkrisc 2y ago
You may be correct, but what else can I do other than avoid flying completely?
xcv123 2y ago
> would be interesting to see the data and be proven wrong! Here's some data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_i... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40010992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40010992
- 15155 2y ago
  Ok, now let's see some data denominated by number of flight hours.
  - xcv123 2y ago
    LOL. Imagine having multiple whistleblowers telling you about widespread criminal negligence at Boeing manufacturing facilities, then all you say is "Ok, now let's see some data". The fucking clowns on this site. LOL.
    - 15155 2y ago
      This is called a "strawman argument." "Widespread criminal negligence" or not, these incidents are mathematically insignificant using highschool-level statistical analyses.
      - xcv123 2y ago
        No it's not a strawman argument. You are missing the point. The article is about a whistleblower reporting criminal negligence at Boeing. It is not a statistical report. Statistics are irrelevant here. However if you want some recent Boeing stats then look at the 737 Max. Two complete losses within two years of its introduction. You must have been living in a cave to not hear about that. From the article. "In a virtual meeting with reporters, Salehpour said Boeing was so eager to meet its production goals that it took "shortcuts" when it fastened together the carbon-composite fuselage of the 787. That could dramatically shorten the life of the plane, he warned, potentially causing it to break apart in mid-flight."

spacecadet 2y ago

I think, like me, this is about sending a message to Boeing.

nkrisc 2y ago

You may be correct, but what else can I do other than avoid flying completely?

xcv123 2y ago

> would be interesting to see the data and be proven wrong! Here's some data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_i... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40010992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40010992

15155 2y ago
Ok, now let's see some data denominated by number of flight hours.
- xcv123 2y ago
  LOL. Imagine having multiple whistleblowers telling you about widespread criminal negligence at Boeing manufacturing facilities, then all you say is "Ok, now let's see some data". The fucking clowns on this site. LOL.
  - 15155 2y ago
    This is called a "strawman argument." "Widespread criminal negligence" or not, these incidents are mathematically insignificant using highschool-level statistical analyses.
    - xcv123 2y ago
      No it's not a strawman argument. You are missing the point. The article is about a whistleblower reporting criminal negligence at Boeing. It is not a statistical report. Statistics are irrelevant here. However if you want some recent Boeing stats then look at the 737 Max. Two complete losses within two years of its introduction. You must have been living in a cave to not hear about that. From the article. "In a virtual meeting with reporters, Salehpour said Boeing was so eager to meet its production goals that it took "shortcuts" when it fastened together the carbon-composite fuselage of the 787. That could dramatically shorten the life of the plane, he warned, potentially causing it to break apart in mid-flight."