News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday February 16, 2020 @04:45PM (#22343935)
Such are the externalities of taking the opinion "It isn't illegal if you don't get caught."[1] It is interesting that had Boeing not pushed the edge on the re-training re-classification rules they would not have had the crashes, nor the spotlight on them, nor this "new" problem.

As a result I have no empathy for managers who are not getting their bonuses this year, or executives who get fired, or corporations who have to take loans on unfavorable terms in order to weather the storm of consequences brought on by trying to avoid following the rules and incurring the expense such rules incur in their execution.

I do feel bad for the engineers who were fired or moved out of the company by pointing out that management wasn't following the rules. I do feel badly for the employees whose livelihood depends on their working on building these amazing machines being put out of work because the consequences are playing out. And I feel a little bit bad for the airlines suffering from carrying a bunch of planes they can't fly. Hopefully people are learning life lessons in this process and the pendulum will swing back into a safer mode of rule following from the current risk taking behavior.

[1] This philosophy, sadly way too common in my opinion, is that "rules" are for idiots, and since we're not idiots we need only concern ourselves with the risks as we understand them of why the rule should be followed, and ignore said rules when we believe we have no risk of both getting caught nor having the "bad thing" the rule prevents happening (at least on our watch while it would reflect on us.).

Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by inamberclad on Sunday February 16, 2020 @05:27PM (#22344137)
They've grandfathered other parts of the aircraft design that aren't nearly as controversial, so Boeing's argument, while predictable, has a little more merit than it seems at first.
Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by x0x0 on Sunday February 16, 2020 @08:04PM (#22344779)
But that argument is being evaluated in light of our views on the trustworthiness of Boeing, and that has fallen precipitously.
Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by maxerickson on Sunday February 16, 2020 @08:17PM (#22344817)
The normalization of deviance is a less cynical explanation (in the sense that it doesn't require the process to involve analysis of the risk of getting caught).
Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by Zenbit_UX on Sunday February 16, 2020 @06:25PM (#22344370)
> It isn't illegal if you don't get caught.

Illegal seems like the wrong word for this sentiment as it's legal status does not depend on being caught. If I were to rob a bank, it would be an illegal act whether or not I'm caught.

Problem seems like an apt substitute.

Re:FAA faces dilemma over 737 Max wiring flaw that Boeing mi... by manicdee on Sunday February 16, 2020 @07:18PM (#22344605)
The phrase reflects on “illegal” being an act for which you are punished by a court or regulatory authority. There is never any question that laws or regulations are actually being broken. View the phrase as exercising poetic licence and using “illegal” as a shorthand for “leading to a conviction and causing the actor to face punitive action.” The backwards logic is that I didn’t face punitive measures therefore what I did is not illegal.

Thus in your example robbing the bank is technically illegal but you aren’t going to court if you don’t get caught.