2 ms·

Then that person should have the right to refuse, ask for appropriate compensation or insurance. It's often argued here that the C-suite earns their high compen

Then that person should have the right to refuse, ask for appropriate compensation or insurance. It's often argued here that the C-suite earns their high compensation by taking on those risks. So let the CFO fatfinger those unchecked transfers if he wishes. But if rollbacks are possible and cheap then we need all that much accountability. People want accountability when there's no rollback possible, e.g. when decisions leads to deaths or life-years wasted.

taeric 2y ago
Your last sentence is basically my disagreement and push, here? Systems can be made so that they can be rolled back. More, systems that oversee life and death situations often have to act faster than a human can respond to them. I'm all for trying to get personal accountability to lead to a personal liability as much as we want. That, just isn't going to happen. So, if you want to change the manual page in question to be that systems should be reversible or "fixable", for whatever that means, sure. But "management decisions" are usually among the most reversible choices any company will ever make.