3 ms·

> Conjecture and informed opinion is all we have, and it seems as if you have rather a bit of the latter .. so why not share a technical analysis of the circums

> Conjecture and informed opinion is all we have, and it seems as if you have rather a bit of the latter .. so why not share a technical analysis of the circumstances based on your understanding rather than attempt an appeal at what could be construed, frankly, as a PR move? Crap, I didn't catch that one. Really? That's how you see what I wrote? Amazing. Here you have an engineer (me) saying: "We don't know enough. We need facts before we can reach a conclusion. Please stop." And your interpretation is that I am using conjecture for PR purposes? Are you an engineer? If you are not, maybe you just don't understand my vantage point. And that's OK. Life goes on. Here's an analogy, imperfect, but, what the hell: A guy gets arrested and accused of rape. You say: "He probably did it. Hang him!". I say: "Let's wait and look at the evidence, which should ideally include DNA. Then we can look at the facts as they may be available to us and make a decision." These are vastly different approaches to the problem. Who would you want in the jury if YOU were the accused? Someone like me or someone like these clowns that are flapping their jaws without having access to the evidence?

aidenn0 14y ago
And this is why stating your occupation as "engineer" is an express ticket off of a jury.
- robomartin 14y ago
  Isn't that the truth! It has happened to me a few times. I actually wanted to serve too. Nope. The minute I revealed what I did: business owner, engineer, software, etc. Done. Excused.
  - warrenm 14y ago
    there is something deeply disturbing about our legal system when that is true :|
  - SilasX 14y ago
    If we're going to report anecdotes, two (aerospace) engineer friends of mine (one of whom professed this purported fact) at the same company got picked for a jury on the same drunk-driving case.
    - robomartin 14y ago
      I think it depends on which attorney gets a turn when they question you. I don't remember exactly, but don't they take turns? I would think that, depending on the nature of the case and the evidence, one or the other attorney might prefer to inject jurors into the jury who might tend to take a more analytical approach to things.
primitur 14y ago
Look, since none of us actually have the data, what you're asking is that we just simply stop discussing the issues that Boeing is having. What can we do but discuss it, at this point - no proper analysis can be made, only one based on conjecture and experience. Isn't it clear by this point that Boeing have a problem? Its either a) an engineering problem, b) a management problem, or c) a combination of both. Its not unreasonable to expect that a company with as much money, and - frankly - unwarranted guaranteed income from the people of the United States of America - to get its act together - and certainly, the means by which it gets it act together is of high interest to the average denizen of hacker news .. So, why call for people to 'not discuss it unless they are experts', then? There are many lessons to be learned here, and we can certainly use our intelligence - the intelligence of the whole - to make a social comment on the issues revolving around Boeing, and in fact the entire military-industrial machine. It has its frailties, obviously - and we are seeing them - so isn't this of High Interest to the hacker news community? Calling for an 'authority' to comment on this issue is hardly a way to gain more insight into the problems of technology in this industry. The 'authority' has already been consulted; and clearly, somewhere along the line, screwed things up completely. The 787 grounding is costing Boeing, its partners, and the American people - a lot of money. Discussing why this happens, how it happens, and what can be done about it, is a very topical use of hacker news, in the first place: so why call for silence-unless-authorized unless there is some desire to reduce the noise from the rabble? The rabble aren't doing any harm; whereas the likelihood that the management personnel of Boeing are doing harm. Only by discussing this can we gain any real insight into just how that can occur. Clearly, the engineering is at fault: there is a fault. Is this management, is it engineering, or is it just plain hard science involved - unless we discuss this situation, openly and with a free will to apply to the investigation, there is nothing much to be gained from the incident in a public setting. I certainly hope they get the problem sorted. The means by which they do that, is of high interest to me. I hope to fly on a 787 one day, and know that my safety is a result of real solutions and not a faulty process being forced on engineering by management under constraint of financial market performance duress.. >>Here you have an engineer (me) saying: "We don't know enough. We need facts before we can reach a conclusion. Please stop." Here you have an entrepreneur saying: "We don't know enough. We need to know more. No conclusions are being made, but the process of discussion sure is interesting - it reveals a lot about human nature when billion-dollar budgets - and human lives - are at risk. Please continue to discuss this issue as a community."
SilasX 14y ago
Not much to add, except that you're not giving yourself enough credit. You didn't just say, "Let's wait for the evidence, like X." You said, "There are a lot of factors that could account for the phenomenon we've observed, some of which would implicate the accused. Here's an extremely thorough list ..."

aidenn0 14y ago

And this is why stating your occupation as "engineer" is an express ticket off of a jury.

robomartin 14y ago
Isn't that the truth! It has happened to me a few times. I actually wanted to serve too. Nope. The minute I revealed what I did: business owner, engineer, software, etc. Done. Excused.
- warrenm 14y ago
  there is something deeply disturbing about our legal system when that is true :|
- SilasX 14y ago
  If we're going to report anecdotes, two (aerospace) engineer friends of mine (one of whom professed this purported fact) at the same company got picked for a jury on the same drunk-driving case.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    I think it depends on which attorney gets a turn when they question you. I don't remember exactly, but don't they take turns? I would think that, depending on the nature of the case and the evidence, one or the other attorney might prefer to inject jurors into the jury who might tend to take a more analytical approach to things.

primitur 14y ago

Look, since none of us actually have the data, what you're asking is that we just simply stop discussing the issues that Boeing is having. What can we do but discuss it, at this point - no proper analysis can be made, only one based on conjecture and experience. Isn't it clear by this point that Boeing have a problem? Its either a) an engineering problem, b) a management problem, or c) a combination of both. Its not unreasonable to expect that a company with as much money, and - frankly - unwarranted guaranteed income from the people of the United States of America - to get its act together - and certainly, the means by which it gets it act together is of high interest to the average denizen of hacker news .. So, why call for people to 'not discuss it unless they are experts', then? There are many lessons to be learned here, and we can certainly use our intelligence - the intelligence of the whole - to make a social comment on the issues revolving around Boeing, and in fact the entire military-industrial machine. It has its frailties, obviously - and we are seeing them - so isn't this of High Interest to the hacker news community? Calling for an 'authority' to comment on this issue is hardly a way to gain more insight into the problems of technology in this industry. The 'authority' has already been consulted; and clearly, somewhere along the line, screwed things up completely. The 787 grounding is costing Boeing, its partners, and the American people - a lot of money. Discussing why this happens, how it happens, and what can be done about it, is a very topical use of hacker news, in the first place: so why call for silence-unless-authorized unless there is some desire to reduce the noise from the rabble? The rabble aren't doing any harm; whereas the likelihood that the management personnel of Boeing are doing harm. Only by discussing this can we gain any real insight into just how that can occur. Clearly, the engineering is at fault: there is a fault. Is this management, is it engineering, or is it just plain hard science involved - unless we discuss this situation, openly and with a free will to apply to the investigation, there is nothing much to be gained from the incident in a public setting. I certainly hope they get the problem sorted. The means by which they do that, is of high interest to me. I hope to fly on a 787 one day, and know that my safety is a result of real solutions and not a faulty process being forced on engineering by management under constraint of financial market performance duress.. >>Here you have an engineer (me) saying: "We don't know enough. We need facts before we can reach a conclusion. Please stop." Here you have an entrepreneur saying: "We don't know enough. We need to know more. No conclusions are being made, but the process of discussion sure is interesting - it reveals a lot about human nature when billion-dollar budgets - and human lives - are at risk. Please continue to discuss this issue as a community."

SilasX 14y ago

Not much to add, except that you're not giving yourself enough credit. You didn't just say, "Let's wait for the evidence, like X." You said, "There are a lot of factors that could account for the phenomenon we've observed, some of which would implicate the accused. Here's an extremely thorough list ..."