Live data from Hacker News

Accountability Sinks

250bpm.substack.com

71–80 of 407 posts

Re: Accountability Sinks

#71
post #33
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with overland travel. You either caused the problem or allowed it to happen. Either way it's your job to fix it and it's the only way to keep going. It requires preparedness, flexibility and resilience. I remember many messes where I just stood there thinking to myself "alright nicbou, what did we learn today?"

In 2012 I've spent almost the entire year hitchhiking around Europe. Mostly alone, sometimes in a small ad-hoc group that would part whenever we had to take different turns. Sometimes there is someone else to blame: a driver who dropped me off in a far worse place (like in the middle of a busy highway); a mate who almost blew all of us up when mishandling a gas cylinder; unsolicited exhibitionism; etc. Well, shit hap…

There is no blame on holiday. Something will go wrong (how can it not?)

Re: Accountability Sinks

#72

As sad as things turned out for the squirrels it’s bizarre to worry too much about 440 squirrels dying in a country with lots of meat farming…

They even mention that the shredder was designed for newborn chicks. So something we routinely do to thousands and thousands of chickens is somehow suddenly horrible if they did it to random 440 squirrels that couldn't be accounted for.

You somehow can't apply logical statements to what we choose to kill and eat. Cultures differ on their opinions here. But at some extreme we should all be vegan.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#73
post #52

Another major accountability sink is employment. Employee is shielded from financial responsibility for the damage he incurs while working. While he may be punished for disobeying orders or acting criminally, he's not financially responsible for the fallout (especially if he was only doing the things he was ordered to do and/or reasonable things). Doing a job is inherently risky behavior. If you are doing it in a con…

>If you are doing it in a context of financial amplifier (a company) in a regulated society that can quickly hunt you down and destroy your life if you misstep Sir, it's the year 2025 of our Lord. Nobody is out there to destroy your life most of the time.

The fact that they don't doesn't mean they can't or they wouldn't. Just reading news from USA from last 3 months should make it obviously clear.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#74
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They even mention that the shredder was designed for newborn chicks. So something we routinely do to thousands and thousands of chickens is somehow suddenly horrible if they did it to random 440 squirrels that couldn't be accounted for.

You somehow can't apply logical statements to what we choose to kill and eat. Cultures differ on their opinions here. But at some extreme we should all be vegan.

The logic is simple, we eat what's convenient to produce and we construct our morals around that.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#75
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sorry for your problem but no-shows automatically invalidate everything else. If you decide to cancel part of a trip due to unexpected events, train strikes or whatever that is not directly under control of the airline itself you must contact them and make sure they will not cancel the rest (including the return flight).

Leaving aside the no-show rule, which doesn't make much sense to me, this situation is a good example of an accountability sink. The intermediary I booked the tickets with made an obvious mistake and showed the wrong airport code. Maybe the airport opening was meant to happen earlier, and the intermediary had already updated their emails or something like that. They refused to do anything meaningful and did not even…

>Leaving aside the no-show rule, which doesn't make much sense to me

A->B->C can be cheaper than B->C. If people could skip flight A, then people already in B would buy the cheaper A->B->C.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#76
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever. Since my last Wikipedia spree on that topic i feel such comparisons are highly inappropriate.

That way of saying that the holocaust is a thing of its own, that can be compared to nothing else is simply a way of separating genocide victims into first-class and second-class victims. The only outcome would be to weaken the collective "Never again" outcry against barbary.

From the perspective of the victims, it was not special, indeed. My "research" focused on the other perspective to learn social patterns.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#77
post #70
post #47

I'm now in a stage of my consulting career where I sometimes really get called into big organisation just to find out, that whatever they need to do is already panned out and they all want to do it! Still they call me cause ... it's a big decision and the "higher ups" (which quite often are not even part of the workshop/session then) want an external expert voice. cause the responsibility for this decision lies with…

Ah yes, ass cover as a service. There's a classic article (2010) about it: https://thetech.com/2010/04/09/dubai-v130-n18 (HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1257644 ) The difference is that while the decision has been made, it isn't necessarily very good.

Often, getting a decision (ANY decision) made is both absolutely critical, and with all the ass covering and office politics involved, nearly impossible. Even if (or sometimes especially) it’s patently obvious to everyone what the decision should be.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#78

> Bad people react to this by getting angry at the gate attendant; good people walk away stewing with thwarted rage. I disagree, slightly. We have to expect some degree of ethical behaviour from everyone, even those who nominally have no room to manoeuvre. If everyone in such positions were to disobey unjust orders the orders would eventually have to change. Walking away stewing in rage does nothing except fill you w…

and enables the situation at the expense of your own health.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#79
> Bad people react to this by getting angry at the gate attendant; good people walk away stewing with thwarted rage.

> You ask to speak to someone who can do something about it, but you're told that's not company policy.

People somewhere in between realise that the point of the gate attendant (or Level 1 tech support person) is to shield management from customers, so you have to outflank the shield.

Being yelled at by a customer is bad for the Level 1 support person, although there's usually a policy in place for phone support that you can hang up if the customer is getting aggressive. What's much worse is saying to management "hey here's something you might want to look at" and being super yelled at by their boss for not doing their duty of keeping the customer away from the higher-ups. That kind of thing can get you fired.

But you can hack the system in many ways. The point is to find someone higher up without going through the person who's not allowed to help you, and without blaming them for doing their job.

Some possibilities: find the higher-ups on linkedin, speak to a company rep or executive personally at an event if your professional circles overlap, send a printed physical letter to someone in control, and so on.

Something I've seen work many times: if you're a student, find out about the university's management structure and ask for a personal meeting with the Dean of X of whoever sits above the department admin person who's assignment is "we've taken this decision, now make the students happy with it". A dozen students asking to personally speak with the Dean or President lets them know something's up and the shield was ineffective. Since there's usally some kind of statement of values about how the "student experience" is central to everything they do (read: "students are paying customers"), they can't just turn you away.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#80
post #46

It's only related to what he wrote but it reminded me of something that low-key annoys me whenever I hear Americans talk about the Holocaust. I know he only touches on it very slightly and indirectly raises a related point to what annoys me about most coverage about it. It's pretty simply that the people that were systematically slaughtered during that time period were classified to be Jews, Gypsies and other "undesi…

At first yes, because they had control over the German Jews. It expanded of course as their control spread through conquering.
Post reply on HN