3 ms·

I’m confused by your reply. The law says you need someone on-site, not that a training class is sufficient. The part of my comment that you quoted was based on

by dahart 2y ago

I’m confused by your reply. The law says you need someone on-site, not that a training class is sufficient. The part of my comment that you quoted was based on the idea of having someone on-site monitoring the workers.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I was highlighting the fact that it isn't simply about knowing the risks.
- dahart 2y ago
  Right, so was I. ;) The point of the law (that requires on-site supervision) is to prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Two opposite statements >The point of the law is to prevent people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, right? >prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
    - dahart 2y ago
      No they’re not, you ignored the rest of my comment and the context and (perhaps accidentally) cherry picked something to disagree with. The statement about not knowing the risks was made immediately after saying OSHA requires an on-site supervisor, which is what prevents people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, and also what provides a worker safeguard regardless of whether or not they know the risks. Same point said two ways, same reason in both cases, and you agreed and repeated the same point I was making. Cheers!
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I read your full statement, agreed with most of it, and cherry picked the part I disagreed with to comment on. That is typical when someone disagrees with something.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        dahart 2y ago
        You didn’t actually disagree with me or my point, you just misunderstood part of what I said. That’s a typical danger of cherry-picking, and when people do that it often gets called out and leads to tangential argument, and it’s one reason why HN guidelines push for generous “strongest plausible” interpretation in multiple ways at all times. Your actual point repeated and reiterated mine, so we’re in full agreement about trench boxes and the reasons behind OSHA laws. Perhaps violent agreement, as they say, but full agreement nonetheless. Just to try to make this tangent more constructive and thoughtful and less argumentative, it’s true that my last sentence is incomplete when taken literally. In retrospect, it’s certainly not a perfect summary of the point of OSHA’s on-site supervision rule. Keeping people out of the trench who don’t know the risks is one reason to have a supervisor, other reasons include keeping people who do know the personal risks from being allowed to choose to accept them, because they might not know the collective or company risks, or because their risk tolerance is unacceptably high. Maybe a better way to say it is that the point of the law is to prevent individual workers from having the choice to take such risks. In any case, I’m pointing out that my comment could be improved by starting with “One point..” rather than “The point..”. I assumed the context mentioning on-site supervision twice made it pretty clear, but that’s on me, my bad assumption. And it’s not uncommon for me to realize my writing is not as clear as I thought.

by dahart 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I was highlighting the fact that it isn't simply about knowing the risks.

dahart 2y ago
Right, so was I. ;) The point of the law (that requires on-site supervision) is to prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Two opposite statements >The point of the law is to prevent people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, right? >prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
  - dahart 2y ago
    No they’re not, you ignored the rest of my comment and the context and (perhaps accidentally) cherry picked something to disagree with. The statement about not knowing the risks was made immediately after saying OSHA requires an on-site supervisor, which is what prevents people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, and also what provides a worker safeguard regardless of whether or not they know the risks. Same point said two ways, same reason in both cases, and you agreed and repeated the same point I was making. Cheers!
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I read your full statement, agreed with most of it, and cherry picked the part I disagreed with to comment on. That is typical when someone disagrees with something.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dahart 2y ago
        You didn’t actually disagree with me or my point, you just misunderstood part of what I said. That’s a typical danger of cherry-picking, and when people do that it often gets called out and leads to tangential argument, and it’s one reason why HN guidelines push for generous “strongest plausible” interpretation in multiple ways at all times. Your actual point repeated and reiterated mine, so we’re in full agreement about trench boxes and the reasons behind OSHA laws. Perhaps violent agreement, as they say, but full agreement nonetheless. Just to try to make this tangent more constructive and thoughtful and less argumentative, it’s true that my last sentence is incomplete when taken literally. In retrospect, it’s certainly not a perfect summary of the point of OSHA’s on-site supervision rule. Keeping people out of the trench who don’t know the risks is one reason to have a supervisor, other reasons include keeping people who do know the personal risks from being allowed to choose to accept them, because they might not know the collective or company risks, or because their risk tolerance is unacceptably high. Maybe a better way to say it is that the point of the law is to prevent individual workers from having the choice to take such risks. In any case, I’m pointing out that my comment could be improved by starting with “One point..” rather than “The point..”. I assumed the context mentioning on-site supervision twice made it pretty clear, but that’s on me, my bad assumption. And it’s not uncommon for me to realize my writing is not as clear as I thought.