Because I am reading this?
Why you've never been in a plane crash
41–50 of 310 posts
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH having software engineer output in general be liable to some minimum safety, correctness and quality standard would be a god send for the world. But of course the developers will revolt against that.
How do you define "minimum safety, correctness and quality standard"?
[deleted]
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to drop blame from the equation is a credit to the aviation industry and would drastically improve any team, organisation, or industry to adopt it.
This very specifically works for Accidents - events nobody actually wanted to happen, where we can learn from experience and prevent it happening again. It specifically won't work for things which were not accidents at all, where blame remains a useful tool. There's some nuance, the Captain of the Titanic didn't intend to sink the ship and kill loads of people, in that sense it was an accident - but he also didn't ne…
> the Captain of the Titanic ...
Any decent accident investigation should highlight that the Captain was under strict instructions from the ship owners to break a record, wealthy influential owners that could and would destroy his career if he failed to push the ship.
Good investigations identify causes with a view to prevent repetition of circumstances.
Cases like these (Titanic, UK Post) strengthen the case for whistle blower protection.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#44This concept of a blameless culture reminds me of one time when I was talking to a SWE at Facebook around 2010. I don’t know whether the story is actually true or just folklore, but apparently someone brought down the whole site on accident once, and it was pretty obvious who did it. Zuckerberg was in the office and walked up to the guy and said something along the lines of “Just so you are aware, it would probably t…
Eh, that’s a really strange way to phrase it. Singling out the engineer isn’t blameless. Sure it’s a learning opportunity but it’s a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn’t be able to take the site down. I have always thought of those situations as “failing together.”
> Singling out the engineer isn't blameless.
Considering that everyone already knew who was responsible, I think saying "you won't be held accountable for this mistake" is the most blameless thing you can do.
> Sure it's a learning opportunity but it's a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn't be able to take the site down.
The way I read the comment, it sounds to me exactly like what Zuckerberg said.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#45>> Why you have never been in a plane crash? Because those who are in a plan crash are mostly dead?
I had the same thought. You , reader, have never been in a plane crash, because if you’d have been in one, you’d be dead.
> You, reader, have never been in a plane crash, because if you’d have been in one, you’d be dead.
You’d be surprised:
> According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, plane crashes technically have a 90% survivability rate, and this figure is increasing, largely thanks to modern aircraft design, which features enough exits to allow for a full passenger evacuation in around 90 seconds.
> Recent proof of plane crash survival came in October last year when a Boston-bound private plane taking off at Houston Executive Airport struck a fence and burst in flames. All 21 people onboard survived. In 2018, all 103 passengers survived a flaming plane crash in Mexico when strong winds brought down Aeromexico flight 2431.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-...
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#46This concept of a blameless culture reminds me of one time when I was talking to a SWE at Facebook around 2010. I don’t know whether the story is actually true or just folklore, but apparently someone brought down the whole site on accident once, and it was pretty obvious who did it. Zuckerberg was in the office and walked up to the guy and said something along the lines of “Just so you are aware, it would probably t…
Trust Zuck to get it wrong...
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the number of data breaches we see cropping up, I wonder if a similar law could be written to hold companies liable for the safe handling of personal data.
TBH having software engineer output in general be liable to some minimum safety, correctness and quality standard would be a god send for the world. But of course the developers will revolt against that.
I don't think it would be the developers that would revolt. Well some would for sure, but the real opposition will come from the C-level, as this would give their employees way too much power to say no.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#48>> Why you have never been in a plane crash? Because those who are in a plan crash are mostly dead?
I was about to say more or less the same thing, then I saw your post.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, that’s a really strange way to phrase it. Singling out the engineer isn’t blameless. Sure it’s a learning opportunity but it’s a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn’t be able to take the site down. I have always thought of those situations as “failing together.”
> Singling out the engineer isn't blameless. Considering that everyone already knew who was responsible, I think saying "you won't be held accountable for this mistake" is the most blameless thing you can do. > Sure it's a learning opportunity but it's a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn't be able to take the site down. The way I read the comment, it sounds to me exactly like what Zuckerb…
Not really. If you single someone out as CEO that's a punishment. Even if your words are superficially nice what he really did was blame the engineer and told him not to do it again. He should have left it with the engineer's line manager to make that comment, if at all because essentially he's telling the employee nothing that he didn't know already.
You did something well, but we made mistakes.
Re: Why you've never been in a plane crash
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, that’s a really strange way to phrase it. Singling out the engineer isn’t blameless. Sure it’s a learning opportunity but it’s a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn’t be able to take the site down. I have always thought of those situations as “failing together.”
> Singling out the engineer isn't blameless. Considering that everyone already knew who was responsible, I think saying "you won't be held accountable for this mistake" is the most blameless thing you can do. > Sure it's a learning opportunity but it's a learning opportunity for everyone involved. One person shouldn't be able to take the site down. The way I read the comment, it sounds to me exactly like what Zuckerb…
In a blameless culture there is no one person responsible.
It should not have been possible for one person to take the site down. There should have been controls in place to prevent it.
There shouldn’t even be someone that “everyone knows” is responsible, because by definition that’s impossible.