Live data from Hacker News

Count to ten when a plane goes down

johncbeck.tumblr.com

31–40 of 284 posts

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#31
post #3

I disagree that it was appropriate that you were fired, but interesting story all about.

That fact that he wasn't too concerned about having accidentally reset all the computers in the building suggests that he may not have had an appropriate temperament/attitude for a sysadmin managing critical systems.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#32

The author states they felt it was appropriate when they were fired. In what world would it be appropriate to get fired for a single, simple, incredibly easy to make mistake? Doubly insane when there were exactly zero safeguards in place to prevent the mistake from being made.

The world where you know you that a) you have an incredibly powerful key with no safeguards at your fingertips and b) you might be in a breaking news situation and nonetheless you go for the key right next to the dangerous one carelessly enough that you miss? Think about it: Unix is equally as "insane". If you're the guy on the console who meant to clean out some crap dir and accidentally typoed "rm -rf /" and then c…

Are you trying to say it's OK because Unix behaves analogously?

It is definitely a problem with Unix also.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#33
post #21
post #2

Reset all computers in the embassy with F7? No warning prompt? Fire the idiot who wrote that function.

It is possible there was a warning for both functions and the operator just acknowledged the warning assuming it was for the single reset without reading it. This is a common problem with warning too often in interfaces.

It's still pretty obviously a horrible idea to have the two keys right next to each other with confirmations that are even remotely similar.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he didn't know there was a breaking news situation. He said pushing the wrong button wouldn't normally be a big deal.

He said he came in to find the system running, and the only time that happened was when Washington was waiting for info. And even if you don't buy that, if pushing the button's not a big deal it doesn't need all the safeguards everyone's yelling for. (Had such safeguards been in place he might equally well have seen them, thought "oh, nobody's in, this will do what I want anyway" and approved it).

One might wonder if that workstation showed the online and offline status of all the computers.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#35
The issue form most new stories is that even when the truth comes out, the great majority of people will never hear the actual facts. One issue is because news stations move on from caring about the story quickly. Or, the bigger issue in my opinion, is that people won't believe the new, correct facts since the old ones will have been engrained in their head. Solving both these issues would be really helpful for society, but are obviously damn hard to solve since we haven't really gotten anywhere in this space.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#36

The author states they felt it was appropriate when they were fired. In what world would it be appropriate to get fired for a single, simple, incredibly easy to make mistake? Doubly insane when there were exactly zero safeguards in place to prevent the mistake from being made.

The world where you know you that a) you have an incredibly powerful key with no safeguards at your fingertips and b) you might be in a breaking news situation and nonetheless you go for the key right next to the dangerous one carelessly enough that you miss? Think about it: Unix is equally as "insane". If you're the guy on the console who meant to clean out some crap dir and accidentally typoed "rm -rf /" and then c…

But typing "rm -rf /" is significantly harder to do accidentally than typing F7 instead of F6.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#37
post #2

Reset all computers in the embassy with F7? No warning prompt? Fire the idiot who wrote that function.

In fairness, it was a different world back then. There were so few people administering computer networks that you could generally assume someone who was doing so had been thoroughly trained; and the thing about highly trained people is that they tend to view things like failsafes and safeties as pointless time-wasters.

"I know what I'm doing when I hit F7, but the damn system makes me sit there for 30 seconds before it does what I told it to do! Piece of junk."

The result was that software in that era tended to come with a lot more sharp edges. The age of the Recycle Bin that would save you from yourself didn't arrive until administering systems became something the general public was expected to do.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#38
"With great power comes great responsibility."

Incidentally, "features" like this are why I don't trust systems that have some centralised control - IMHO giving any one individual (or organisation, in many cases these days) such power over others is not a good thing.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#39
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stole the words right out of my keyboard. Who puts the 'reset every workstation in the building' button right next to the 'reset just one workstation' button with no confirmation prompt?

He might have been that times IT Administrator? We've come a long way over these past 30 years, but think about it for a second, if you're an IT Administrator today handling all the office machines, you probably have the power to click 1 button to turn them all off? (Depending on the setup of course..) There's obviously more access rights involved today. Doesn't answer "who" put the button in there, I'm just thinking…

The issue wasn't whether he allowed to press it; it was just way too easy to press accidentally.

Even if I have the authority to press the big red button, I'd like it to be behind glass and far from the light switch.

Re: Count to ten when a plane goes down

#40
I remember this time sequence very well because I was living in Taiwan when the incident happened. Yes, people who lived in east Asian time zones saw news reports that appeared to be based on knowledgeable sources that the plane might have landed safely with all passengers alive. This explanation of why the Western-aligned diplomats and military officials based in east Asia didn't have complete information when they were interviewed by the press is quite interesting, and explains puzzling memories I have from that day.
Post reply on HN