This hyper selective attention is very bad. It leads to all kinds of wrong inference about the background frequency of events, because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.
> because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.
They knew that was a risk when they started cutting corners. Now they are paying the price. Can't say I feel for them. It's a nice deterrent.
In the broader 'news' context, it's bad, because there are a crapton of things that really aren't as significant as they are made out to be to the layman. It's not a firehose we should be drinking from, instead, the most significant things are supposed to be selected by specialists so we have enough space in our heads to focus on things we choose to instead of just whatever happens to be getting firehosed at us.
(you can probably elaborate the 'selected by specialists' with complete departments or even organisations that specialise in various things - the world is much too big and made of too many pieces for just some person or small team to do all the 'is this thing important' work for everything, and definitely not in a single outlet)
Another example is the stranger kidnapping scare of the ‘80s.
There’s an unhealthy paradox at work: The rarer a highly emotional event occurs, the more media attention attention it gets. The more media attention something gets, the more people think it’s actually common.
Another example is police killing unarmed black men.
Trying explaining to someone that something is in the news because it’s rare is futile.
People are absolutely dying because of an incoherent understanding of the value chain. The decision to outsource may please Wall Street for three months but it certainly hurts the brand in the long term. Boeing is in the business of R&D and production. That’s their value add. Fuck the investors, they’re literally killing people!
epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.
???
But perhaps the company's recent problems will give an engineering-minded CEO a little more leverage to steer the company back toward engineering excellence, even in the face of pressure from the board and shareholders.
Apparently AF261 had a whistleblower who had to sue in court for damages. That's not correct, that's not how this should be done.
> Jan. 12, 2024, 8:07 AM CST / Updated Jan. 12, 2024, 8:54 PM CST
> The Federal Aviation Administration will increase its oversight of Boeing production and manufacturing, the agency said Friday, one day after announcing it had opened an investigation.
> The FAA says it will audit Boeing's 737 Max 9 production line and its suppliers "to evaluate Boeing’s compliance with its approved quality procedures."
> The results of the initial audit will determine whether additional audits are needed, the agency said.
> "It is time to re-examine the delegation of authority and assess any associated safety risks," FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker said in a statement.
> ...
The linked statement: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increasing-oversight-boeing...
Either way, I don't think it's a net positive for us to choose to be less correctly informed about an issue or encourage the same in others, even if it's in pursuit of an otherwise worthwhile goal.
In that case nothing will ever be done, improved or innovated. The optimal is close, but greater than zero on faulty decisions.
> According to the Federal Aviation Administration, more than three dozen instances of cracked windshields have been reported by airlines over the past five years.
Most of them are Boeing it seems:
14x Airbus
35x Boeing
5x Bombardier
3x Embraerhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140507001219-90103575-crack...
https://avherald.com/h?search_term=windshield+crack&opt=0&do...
There are lots of Boeing on there, but unsure what the ratio of Boeing to Airbus there are in service. Certainly some Airbus on there as well.
The FAA should have hell to pay if they certify it and this will put pressure on them, as at the end of the day they answer to the American public, even if boeing only answers to shareholders.
They had arguably much worse events on Jan 2 (landing JAL516 A350 crashed into a earthquake relief Coast Guard DC-8 on landing; killed 5, and both aircraft caught fire).
Instead right now it's the #1 story on HN.
Mostly it’s people repeating their parents stories and they’ve never bothered to fact check them, or it’s people who have never like Boeing doing military aircraft and simply shit on them for that.
It has zero impact though outside of extending the ignorance of HN readers and promoting fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No one doing aerospace cares what HN thinks or even knows about HN for that matter.
I don't see how making a stink over Boeing's constant little problems isn't a tiny cosmic balancing act against their decades of negligence.
I'm attacking the way in which the media (and audience, the media is mostly just chasing ratings) gets obsessed about a topic to the exclusion of other stories, only to dramatically flip-flop around and completely dump a topic once it's bored of it.
I don't know what percentage of HN is about AI & LLM in the past few months but it's like nothing else important is happening in the ICT world.
For many, like OP, Hacker News is the place to post random news that have nothing to do with computers or hacking. (I blame HN's vague and simplistic guidelines that allow "anything that our users might find interesting")
Thankfully. If HN was just posts about Docker or Web stacks I would have left a long time ago.