Killing that guy should fix this.
What do you mean “a whistleblower in the middle of testifying against Boeing’s shoddy and unsafe construction practices decides to off himself in a hotel parking lot” isn’t normal?
Two bullet wounds to the back of the head is perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
Did you just make that up?
No. Gary Webb, the reporter from the San Jose Mercury News who first broke the story of CIA involvement in the cocaine trade, was found dead with “two gunshot wounds to the head.” His death, in 2004, was ruled a suicide.
The first shot went through his face, and exited at his left cheek. The coroner’s staff concluded that the second shot hit an artery.
Not quite the back of the head.
Sorry I don’t have Wikipedia memorized
Pretty sure this meme refers to when someone finds the slightest, most irrelevant technicality so they can say you’re wrong. You’re just straight up incorrect here in a way that’s directly applicable to the thread. There’s nothing wrong with that, everyone gets shit wrong.
Ah, the meaning of my comment went straight over your head and you resort to throwing insults around.
I’ll spell it out then: The fact that the first shot merely went through his mouth, from one cheek to the other makes it entirely possible, even probable, that Gary Webb commited suicide. Even his ex-wife said so:
Webb’s ex-wife, Susan Bell, told reporters that she believed Webb had died by suicide.[72] “The way he was acting it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but suicide,” she said. According to Bell, Webb had been unhappy for some time over his inability to get a job at another major newspaper. He had sold his house the week before his death because he was unable to afford the mortgage.
Spreading unfounded, exaggerated conspiracy theories while not even getting the facts straight isn’t helping anyone but the perpetrators, especially when the CIA actually did commit some atrocious crimes that can be cited by stating facts instead of fiction.
If Boeing stock drops another $30 or so, I’m going to have to buy some.
I really, really hate capitalism most days but play the game I suppose.
lol yep, this describes my outlook as well. I can play the game, and I’m actually decent at it, but the game is absolutely, categorically awful, and it’d be great for humanity at large if we could all stop playing it.
Wonder how many C-level execs get in trouble? /s
It’s funny I know someone who’s an exec at Boeing Space, which is practically a completely different company and 99% a gov contractor. Let’s just say the SLS hassss to work flawlessly because its got “Boeing” written all over its parts, luckily NASA is leading the project so it’ll probably go as planned.
That has got to be a depressing job. I can’t imagine the pain of being involved in starliner and SLS.
I would imagine you can find safety flaws in anything because safety isn’t a thing we can measure.
I’m going to take a leap of faith and say you don’t work in aviation…
Step one… define safety in the context of the airplane.
Step two… measure it.So yea. If safety is never defined it cannot be measured. But is the sentiment you are attempting to express is that measurable safety guidelines have not been defined for these massively complicated and long-running commercial aircraft?
Maybe I am misunderstanding because at first glance your comment comes across as nonsensical, please elaborate.
How do you think safety is verified?
Safety cannot be measured because it’s a feeling. One person feels safe climbing a mountain without a rope and the next person is petrified. Safety is just word to describe a concept. It’s different to the wavelength of light or force or charge. These things are based on fundamental properties of the universe that can be measured and are repeatable.
A reasonable approximation might be to consider the likelihood of an adverse event given a use case over time. We could say that an accident every million hours is our definition of safe but that is completely arbitrary in the way that the physical laws and constants are not.
One accident per million hours is a direct measurement of safety, not “completely arbitrary”. The idea that the threshold in aviation regulations are “arbitrary” because it’s not based on a physical law or constant is like saying the temperature we use as “too hot for prolonged contact” is arbitrary. If you exceed it you’re likely to get burned, and if you exceed the safety thresholds in aviation regulations you’ll be less safe in an airplane than other types of transportation that we as a society find acceptable.
In engineering safety is not “just a feeling”.
Your arguments are so absurd I’m certain you’re just trolling for a reaction with brain dead comments like this.
It’s a measurement on an arbitrary scale. Nothing I’ve said is news to anyone who designs safety critical systems. I’m certainly not saying that safety isn’t important or that we can’t assess it. What I’m saying is that placing a number on that assessment will always stray into the realm of politics in a way that physics and mathematics never does. It lulls ignorant people into the belief that something is safe or not safe. They feel safe because they’ve been told it is safe or vice versa. Physics doesn’t care if you feel safe.
It’s notable that contemporary safety standards such as ISO 26262 generally avoid numerical assessments, for the reasons outlined above.
deleted by creator
“safety isn’t a thing we can measure” says a guy who knows nothing about measuring risk and assumes it means no one in the world does either.
I take a lot of risks but never with yo mama. I always take my time with her.
