Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing workers vote to strike

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–578 of 578 posts

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#571

Post by AndrewKemendo »

asats wrote: post #566
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard to imagine worlds other than the ones that you currently live in? as though there’s no possible way to resolve this concept, ergo something like syndicalist anarchism *gasp* who would’ve ever thought something so well understood long described could be implemented someplace imagine that. *faints* As they say, it’s easier for most people to picture the end of the world than the end of capitalism Mayb…

I grew up in russia mate, I've seen the alternative to capitalism, and I can tell you that capitalism is a damn paradise compared to what that alternative was. Instead of doing drugs just read some history on how those things go. Once you start expropriating anything you'll get a violent pushback, that's either a coup or a civil war, during those you will get violent people take charge, then if your side looses you g…

The USSR isn’t the opposite of capitalism. I’m excruciatingly aware of the history of all state communist regimes. Which I directly stated.

Read Proudhon. Try harder

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#572

Post by SixDouble5321 »

HeavyStorm wrote: post #528

Am I the only one seeing a bit of naivette from the union? While I've been observing the whole Boeing debacle I don't know their financials, but I can only assume they are bad. Couldn't such a large strike take the company to the brink? I know during turmoil you can usually negotiate better terms, but...

Boeing might be too big to fail. Even if they fail all the time, they have guaranteed government money. Defense and space are lucrative.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#573

Post by consteval »

zahlman wrote: post #570
consteval wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, it's 100% true. Often conversations about business owners and executives will be derailed to address the "risk" they face, that being the reasoning we should cut them some slack. In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath. Arguing business owners take on risk, and then immediately countering saying we should not hold them accountable. It's a similar thing you see to the police. When a L…

>In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath. Perhaps you could show some examples, then. What you describe is completely foreign to my own experience. >When a LEO shoots someone without due cause No, that is not when the argument is brought out. Often, however, it's brought out to highlight that there was, in fact, due cause that was not obvious to critics. >But there's not very much risk if you sh…

You're missing the point, the LEO argument is just an example of this phenomenon. I'm not here to actually arguing for or against hypothetical law enforcement crimes. I can't, by the way - I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole. I know how tempted people get.

> If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death

I didn't. It's really going over your head here.

> evidence

... of what? The phenomenon that people will often talk about risk while also using that definition of risk as justification for why slack should be given? I just did, in two different ways.

But it's a real phenomenon and you can find literally infinite examples. I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.

People say the same thing about the military. Risky, risking their lives, heros, yadda yadda yadda therefore look past some small crimes. These arguments eat themselves from the inside out.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#574

Post by zahlman »

consteval wrote: post #573
zahlman wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In those cases, it quite literally happens in the same breath. Perhaps you could show some examples, then. What you describe is completely foreign to my own experience. >When a LEO shoots someone without due cause No, that is not when the argument is brought out. Often, however, it's brought out to highlight that there was, in fact, due cause that was not obvious to critics. >But there's not very much risk if you sh…

You're missing the point, the LEO argument is just an example of this phenomenon. I'm not here to actually arguing for or against hypothetical law enforcement crimes. I can't, by the way - I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole. I know how tempted people get. > If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death I didn't. It's really going over your…

> I didn't. It's really going over your head here.

You think you didn't, but you did. Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.

You might not believe their threat assessment is reasonable; but you are not the one trained to understand these situations, and you have presumably not had to negotiate them yourself.

Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at. They're saying the police should be excused for shooting people because they had a real reason to believe that the person who was shot would otherwise shoot them first. (Or charge at them with a knife from within 6 metres or so, etc.)

This is not done for the purpose of killing - that is just a frequent consequence of the standard practice to minimize the chance of being the victim. Anything else would be irresponsible.

> I just did, in two different ways.

No, you didn't. You described some forms of argument. You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.

> I don't know why you're fighting me on this, to me this is painfully obvious.

Because to me, the opposite is painfully obvious. I can recall "literally infinite" examples of people telling me that the discourse worked the way you describe, me looking into it, and me promptly finding that the other person was simply mistaken.

> I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole.

Which is another way to say that you did not provide evidence.

I tire of this.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#575

Post by asats »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #571
asats wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in russia mate, I've seen the alternative to capitalism, and I can tell you that capitalism is a damn paradise compared to what that alternative was. Instead of doing drugs just read some history on how those things go. Once you start expropriating anything you'll get a violent pushback, that's either a coup or a civil war, during those you will get violent people take charge, then if your side looses you g…

The USSR isn’t the opposite of capitalism. I’m excruciatingly aware of the history of all state communist regimes. Which I directly stated. Read Proudhon. Try harder

>Try harder

Why? I have zero interest in yet another utopian idea that will probably result in millions dead, as they always do. The current system works well enough and seems like a miracle to me coming from where I grew up, the fact that you can work hard on anything you want, take risks and get rewarded for it, and no one is gonna arbitrarily take it all away is magical.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#576

Post by jonhohle »

FireBeyond wrote: post #375
jonhohle wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX,… how many times does someone “win the lottery” before it’s not actually chance? Not saying anyone can repeat it, or a random IC could leave and succeed, but that space seems ripe for disruption. (Maybe not passenger planes, but cargo with less liability.)

Obligatory repeat of this detail, since you're talking about PayPal as a Musk success story: Musk had very little to do with the success of PayPal. I'm not even talking in terms of the "Gwynne Shotwell is the real genius of SpaceX" naysayers. I'm talking: Musk had an attempt at an online bank that was ... not going well. Confinity had done what Musk couldn't - had built a prototype/MVP of PayPal. They'd already got i…

I suppose I would like to be as unsuccessful as that.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#577

Post by consteval »

zahlman wrote: post #574
consteval wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point, the LEO argument is just an example of this phenomenon. I'm not here to actually arguing for or against hypothetical law enforcement crimes. I can't, by the way - I was very careful not to mention any specific circumstances purely so we wouldn't go down this rabbit hole. I know how tempted people get. > If you ignore the risk of physical injury or death I didn't. It's really going over your…

> I didn't. It's really going over your head here. You think you didn't, but you did. Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death. You might not believe their threat assessment is reasonable; but you are not the one trained to understand these situations, and you have presumably not had to negotiate them yourself. Nobody is saying that the police should be ex…

> Again: police don't just shoot people preemptively. They do so when there is a risk of injury or death.

They most certainly do, otherwise there wouldn't be trials and some cops in jail. Well, there are, so some do. And when those "some" do, then people will defend them via risk. Which DOESN'T WORK if you eliminate risk by preemptive murder.

> Nobody is saying that the police should be excused for shooting people because they're in a job where they could get shot at.

Many, many, many people do say this. They say almost exactly this. There's many examples, I won't list any however because I don't think it matters and I don't want to give you any fuel for a tirade.

> You gave no reason to believe that anyone actually presents such arguments.

How the actual fuck do you expect me to do this? I've talked to people in my life, I've been on Twitter. Hell, I live in Texas and BOTH my parents are Trumpies - I've heard MUCH more insane arguments. For fuck's sake, I've heard arguments on how vaccines cause autism. Not just small little arguments too - many real people I actually know.

You're really, truly, with your entire heart, telling me you've never heard an argument like this? Really? Okay. If that's the case then okay. You win. Jesus Christ talk about difficult.

Re: Boeing workers vote to strike

#578

Post by obscuretone »

lupusreal wrote: post #126
obscuretone wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone is a little bit responsible then no one is fully responsible. It’s like dieselgate. Or the Pornhub chaos. The VP’s tell the directors to get it done. The directors get it done. There’s a liability force field and those that protect and serve are elevated.

In the aerospace industry, and other safety critical industries, they use the "swiss cheese" model for risk analysis. For an accident to get through all the layers (slices of cheese) meant to stop accidents, you need the holes in all of those layers to line up in just the wrong way. When that happens you need to investigate and fix each layer of cheese, not focus on the single layer of cheese on the top and ignore th…

I've written safety-critical firmware. You'd be surprised :D
Post reply on HN