3 ms·
What's the item of interest here? I don't follow funny car (?) drag racing, but this seems like a pedantic argument that a video thumbnail claiming "parachute
by caminante 2y ago
What's the item of interest here?
I don't follow funny car (?) drag racing, but this seems like a pedantic argument that a video thumbnail claiming "parachute failure" is misleading because the "parachutes" didn't fail, but the "parachute system" did fail.
And they author doesn't know why,
> we may never have an answer to [why the parachutes didn't deploy]
but they want you to click and monetize a 5 minute "talk radio" bit to learn more?
No thanks.
- LanceH 2y agoIt's a big deal to the people making and using the parachutes.
- dylan604 2y agoNow imagine the parachutes of Starliner or Crew Dragon not deploying correctly and the investigation that would follow. s/funny car/space capsule/
- Swizec 2y ago> > we may never have an answer to [why the parachutes didn't deploy] > but they want you to click and monetize a 5 minute "talk radio" bit to learn more? > No thanks. We got the HANS device because NASCAR drivers kept dying despite their helmets technically not failing “but the helmet system” did. (extreme whiplash leads to basal skull fractures even in the absence of a direct hit to the helmet) Resilience is all about identifying these technically correct nitpicky details. If we know the parachutes were fine but the system wasn’t, we can go fix the system.
- colechristensen 2y agoPeople arguing about the borders of where a label does and does not apply is usually a waste. Maybe if you’re designing a thing precise language is important, but for lay folks there’s no point in longwinded rants arguing the difference between “the parachute failed” and “the parachute failed to deploy”. Such things degrade the discussion and distract from whatever is actually going on.