• The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice
    25 replies, posted
So I dunno if this is just me, but a common theme of this story, and the Opioid Epidemic is pretty clear cut. Regulators are failing their jobs due to corporate influence and monetary pressures. The Sacklers hammered the FDA to approve a decidely dangerous drug in a record short time period. Boeing hammered the FAA to get their MAX8's out faster than any plane previously. What's clear to me is that this issue can't be resolved without a government crackdown on these people. There's no consequences to them, they need to lose billions of dollars, enough to change their operational expenses, or they need to be jailed in non white collar jails for their crimes against humanity and the american people.
What's sad is how this trend of self certification is continuing, and has been under every president since Reagan. Both pork and beef will be able to self-ceritify soon as well. I don't know why we keep letting these clowns do this shit.
Whatever the death toll of the opiod epidemic is, will pale in comparison to the soon to come food borne illnesses that are going to spread like rats
something very dystopian and chilling about a company saying they're gonna "push a software update to make it a bit better" when talking about a system which single handed ended 346 lives.
Let's just hope it's not developed by Bethesda.
I mean, on the one hand it might be a disaster. On the other, we might accidentally discover FTL travel.
Mix a bit of greed, with a bit of incompetence, and with a dash of corruption and you get a recipe for disaster. A disaster that costed innocent people their lives.
"On one hand yeah, the passengers were liquefied because the plane vibrated uncontrollably fused itself halfway into the ground and then shot itself vertically into the sky at speeds I can't even begin to describe, on the other hand we may have accidentally created a warp drive"
Who knew that capitalistic competition could create problems and not just solve everything
Or backwards flying 737's.
124 people were killed at LAX today when a taxing 747 sunk into the ground and violently shook with forces exceeding 320 g before suddenly leaving Earth's atmosphere at mach 9.
imagine your life ending now imagine that happening to 346 people
While I agree that greed definitely creates problems, I think it's a bit ridiculous to point at the airline industry, one of the safest ways of travelling, and then claim that "capitalism doesn't solve problems lol". Consumers care heavily about aircraft safety. Western - capitalist - countries have the safest airline industries around. It's always hard to take these discussions, because by and large, modern countries are capitalist, don't have an airline industry, or they're totalitarian states that don't care about the lives of their citizens. So who do you compare these manufacturers to? (Soviet) Russia? China? In the end, if you don't have any countries to compare to, you just end up assuming that things would be better if society was just like X, which is a complete no-brainer if X represents a utopia.
Imagine being a well trained pilot with all those lives in your hands and facing your impending doom with absolutely no way to fix it.
Yeah, that probably sucks.
I didn't like this video very much. Sure it was informative, but the information was buried in some far overdone pathos. And even then the details were lacking--only a passing mention that it was a sensor failure, without talking about the complete lack of redundancy and etc, for example. And then there's that entire narration for the Lion Air 610, spare me. The title is a bait into an informative, investigative piece and I am instead given a a man who sounds like he can barely hold back his over-acted sobs and repetitious prose to really hammer into me what they want me to feel. "The nose of the plane kept LURCHING downward," "The pilots couldn't figure out WHY this was happening... they couldn't find a solution!" I guess the "why" I was looking for wasn't the "WHHHHHYYYYYYY" they wanted to sell me.
Well I mean, it was a 5min overview of the situation, it wasn't a full on documentary.
And that's because of regulatory oversight, not the result of unchecked capitalism.
If “unchecked” capitalism is the only kind of capitalism we’ll consider, I suppose the socialists won years ago, and none of us are living in capitalist societies, right? No reason to walk the streets on May 1st, eh?
The point is that we're capable of finer analysis than "good country be capitalist, so capitalism good". In this case you mention capitalist countries having the safest airlines, which has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism inherently leading to safe infrastructure and everything to do with regulatory oversight being a necessary limitation to capitalism. Plenty of developing countries with shit airlines are also capitalist, they simply don't have the sufficient regulatory framework to counter it. Your point is just a stupid gotcha when you only need to watch this video to understand that what led to these deaths is this new plane design being rushed out and corners being cut to quickly overtake the competition and regulatory authorities being an insufficient check to this profit-seeking enterprise. That's literally the result of insufficiently checked capitalism. The safest countries being capitalist doesn't change that.
Capitalistic greed let to this aircraft accident =/= Capitalism doesn't lead to safe aircraft =/= Other ideologies lead to safer aircraft There are several jumps in logic here. Airplanes are hugely complex machines, and you can't simply look to two accidents out of a myriad, and decide that therefore capitalism doesn't or can't lead to a safe airline industry. Regulatory oversight is needed in any system, not just capitalism. You're ruling out that A) there's nothing beneficial in having companies being a distinct entity to the state in terms of regulation, and B) capitalism doesn't have any gains (safety or otherwise) in terms of innovation on its own. You're also ruling out that other ideologies wouldn't have priorities at conflict with safety - again, we don't have good comparisons, because the list of "countries that are perfectly communist/socialist and also produce aircraft" is currently non-existent, but look at stuff like the TU-144 (or the Voskhod-programme) . A project based completely on pride (and definitely not profit), throwing to the side considerations for human safety in order to chase sensationalism. Capitalism has a failure mode in that greed compels people to take shortcuts, but other ideologies are not necessarily without faults. Developing countries don't have the money to buy safe aircraft and maintain them properly. I'm not sure you can just regulate that away (if you want an airline industry at all). They also just don't produce and certify their own aircraft, which is what we're discussing. I mean it's a "stupid gotcha" to the extent that I never said those things didn't result in this accident. What I said was that there's no indication that other ideologies would've resulted in a safer aircraft industry, which might be a little subtle for you guys, but that was the actual point made. Most of the time aircraft crash because they're complex machines piloted by humans. In this case regulatory oversight failed because of industry lobbying, and I'd have no qualms with a couple of CEOs getting thrown in jail for this - but when you look at the industry at large, it is exceedingly safe, thanks to both competent failure investigations as well as largely competent companies.
tbh wtf is up with you tankies not being ok with dying for the sake of lowered costs for the rich and deserving?
Never once said that, no. You're the one who responded to a post which claims that capitalism has flaws by defending it, and implied that it's the best system we could possibly have. I simply pointed out that the benefits you attribute to capitalism don't really stem from it. Most of the mechanisms you describe would also be there in a market socialism system, for instance. Just because the alternatives to capitalism currently in application in the world don't yield better results doesn't mean there aren't alternatives that would. Then why even mention that capitalist countries have the safest airlines industries around? If they're the only ones, then yeah, of course? Heck of a moot point.
I didn't claim that capitalism doesn't solve problems, I said it does but creates them as well. We agree about that. My post was a subtle strawman against those who argue that laissez-faire capitalism is inherently a good way for solving problems, citing the fact that the competition to create a product fast is what directly caused these accidents. Strawmen and zingers aside if you want a seirous discussion I think it'd rather talk about the harms of competition in general and how they could be mitigated not just in capitalist systems but in other systems as well. In an ideal world perhaps the rival engineers would've been working together and not against each other.
Fair enough, I can get behind that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.