4 ms·

Think we have to differentiate between using these as signals of bad practice or process and using them as scapegoats or excuses in hindsight. Once something go

Think we have to differentiate between using these as signals of bad practice or process and using them as scapegoats or excuses in hindsight. Once something goes wrong, it's really easy to create a case for guilt by using many small, unrelated, eventually inconsequential pieces of evidence - often greater than the sum of the parts and I feel this can be really unfair.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 12y ago
There are far too many signals of bad practice, arrogance and refusal to cooperate to just leave them alone. Of course if there was success people wouldn't be looking into this (as much), but that's par for the course. When bad practices are involved, you either (a) succeed so all is OK, or (b) face the consequences when you fail. The third option, (c) have bad practices and be left alone after you fail is not really productive or helpful for the industry.
- quonn 12y ago
  The fourth option, (d) there were no bad practices is also possible. The fact that the did not get their design reviewed may be normal in that industry. The safety issues in 2007 may well have been addressed and in any case, it's not clear they are related to the current issue. The fact that some important employees have recently quit is suspect, I agree. But we don't know why they have quit, do we? Maybe the were not happy with their salary or there were other personal reasons. This is worth investigating, though. EDIT: I just read the article and there seem to be plenty of other warning signs.
krisoft 12y ago
It really rubs me the wrong way that you seemingly refer to the previous test related death of 3 people as a "small" incident. I'm sure that's not what you intended to write. Maybe what you say is that it's unrelated, therefore "has a small relevance" now. Even then I would argue that evidence of blatant disregard of safety protocols in the past is a relevant piece of the puzzle. But declaring it a small incident? I would not.
- pulkitpulkit 12y ago
  Apologies: don't mean to imply that deaths are a "small incident" or that they can be forgiven. My point is not about whether they are or aren't guilty of malpractice or poor protocols, but that a thorough investigation should be used to determine that, not stringing together a series of events that make it easy for any passive reader to discredit the organisation. tl, dr: we shouldn't pass judgement based on this article.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 12y ago

There are far too many signals of bad practice, arrogance and refusal to cooperate to just leave them alone. Of course if there was success people wouldn't be looking into this (as much), but that's par for the course. When bad practices are involved, you either (a) succeed so all is OK, or (b) face the consequences when you fail. The third option, (c) have bad practices and be left alone after you fail is not really productive or helpful for the industry.

quonn 12y ago
The fourth option, (d) there were no bad practices is also possible. The fact that the did not get their design reviewed may be normal in that industry. The safety issues in 2007 may well have been addressed and in any case, it's not clear they are related to the current issue. The fact that some important employees have recently quit is suspect, I agree. But we don't know why they have quit, do we? Maybe the were not happy with their salary or there were other personal reasons. This is worth investigating, though. EDIT: I just read the article and there seem to be plenty of other warning signs.

krisoft 12y ago

It really rubs me the wrong way that you seemingly refer to the previous test related death of 3 people as a "small" incident. I'm sure that's not what you intended to write. Maybe what you say is that it's unrelated, therefore "has a small relevance" now. Even then I would argue that evidence of blatant disregard of safety protocols in the past is a relevant piece of the puzzle. But declaring it a small incident? I would not.

pulkitpulkit 12y ago
Apologies: don't mean to imply that deaths are a "small incident" or that they can be forgiven. My point is not about whether they are or aren't guilty of malpractice or poor protocols, but that a thorough investigation should be used to determine that, not stringing together a series of events that make it easy for any passive reader to discredit the organisation. tl, dr: we shouldn't pass judgement based on this article.