4 ms·

You seem awfully quick to indict them. While honesty is definitely a virtue, too much can hurt. They wanted to avoid causing a panic, and they monitored risk ca

You seem awfully quick to indict them. While honesty is definitely a virtue, too much can hurt. They wanted to avoid causing a panic, and they monitored risk carefully. Presumably they had time to issue evacuation orders in the event the storm turned towards the city. In the end they completed the repairs and no one had to panic. Compare that with the evacuation of Fukushima after the incident at the nuclear plant, which released a very minor amount of radiation. Many people suffered severe psychological stress at not being able to return home and not knowing when or if they'd be allowed to go home. Some to the point of suicide. In that case the issue was more about unnecessary evacuation as opposed to messaging, but the point stands the unnecessary panic can cause real harm.

neilv 1y ago
I acknowledged that's a factor for some people. Throughout the article, from the beginning, the writer keeps going out of their way to exonerate the main character. But elsewhere they do acknowledge the risks to the company's stock price, individual reputations, etc. So it does seem that was a factor for some, and a potential conflict of interest.
- actinium226 1y ago
  I'd much rather see someone who did the right thing get celebrated. There are so many possible other routes he could have taken that all involve less integrity (or extremely harmful integrity, like suicide, which he admits to having briefly considered), and some measure of public harm. It's also such a nuanced issue, with bolts vs welds and arguably no one having done anything wrong individually, that I can't imagine a way to explain this to the public that people could understand and be like "yea that makes sense" and proceed to act rationally. Add to that the fact that there's so much probability involved in the potential path and strength of any storm and I'm not sure a member of the general public could reach a rational conclusion. Of course we'll never know, but the point is that the man did the right thing, and of course we should celebrate that.
  - neilv 1y ago
    Agreed, I have mixed and nuanced feelings about this. The article seemed a little too generous at points, though. Maybe the writer was trying to celebrate, and to head off some kneejerk criticisms, but still with the idea that people would be looking over this reporting, and that there'd be a place for constructive criticism?

neilv 1y ago

I acknowledged that's a factor for some people. Throughout the article, from the beginning, the writer keeps going out of their way to exonerate the main character. But elsewhere they do acknowledge the risks to the company's stock price, individual reputations, etc. So it does seem that was a factor for some, and a potential conflict of interest.

actinium226 1y ago
I'd much rather see someone who did the right thing get celebrated. There are so many possible other routes he could have taken that all involve less integrity (or extremely harmful integrity, like suicide, which he admits to having briefly considered), and some measure of public harm. It's also such a nuanced issue, with bolts vs welds and arguably no one having done anything wrong individually, that I can't imagine a way to explain this to the public that people could understand and be like "yea that makes sense" and proceed to act rationally. Add to that the fact that there's so much probability involved in the potential path and strength of any storm and I'm not sure a member of the general public could reach a rational conclusion. Of course we'll never know, but the point is that the man did the right thing, and of course we should celebrate that.
- neilv 1y ago
  Agreed, I have mixed and nuanced feelings about this. The article seemed a little too generous at points, though. Maybe the writer was trying to celebrate, and to head off some kneejerk criticisms, but still with the idea that people would be looking over this reporting, and that there'd be a place for constructive criticism?