The experts told NASA not to launch, and exactly why, and were right.

Management chose not to listen.

The purpose of his analogy is to simply illustrate the point he is making. Why are you nitpicking an analogy? It’s not helpful to me as a reader or to any argument you could make.

Why are you tone-policing someone for pointing out that a given example is not supporting the actual theory?

Are you ESL?

It’s not an example, it is an analogy.

This is the difference: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-analogy

https://phdessay.com/difference-figurative-literal-analogy/

Hi, welcome to HN!

I would encourage you to please take another look at the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

While you may be used to making swipes such as "Are you ESL?" on other platforms, such behavior is really unwelcome here.

I fail to see how reading multiple essays on the nuances of "literal and figurative analogies" will convince me that the other guy was nitpicking.

This is not quite the same.

Experts did make mistakes for the challenger explosion, but they did much better than the average person. Put 1000 people at complete random into a room and say design and build a rocket, I suspect they won't even get to the build phase after several years.

When it comes to something everyone should be able to do, an expert making a mistake is a bad omen for the rest of us.

The vast majority of people do not get hacked, because they are not worth being hacked. But being a big target means hackers will devote more resources to getting your coins.

Nah we just need to give up the fantasy that you can be sure a computer isn't compromised.

Hardware all the way.

I have my pgp key on a yubikey, my crypto on a ledger. My passwords on a mooltipass.

There are few mistakes I could make leading to this kind of compromise. Perhaps none!

You underestimate the power of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

That 1000 random people will build it, get it on the launchpad, and press the button. That's not the problem. It's getting to orbit (and back) that would be highly unlikely.

So? Just proves how difficult it is to make rockets that never explode. Are you saying that a non-expert would have more success?

re-read. experts make mistakes too

“Experts make mistakes too”

But did you consider that your analogy (which is there to ONLY illustrate the point) doesn’t work in this random scenario that’s unrelated to your point?

“Guys I think libraries are good” wow OP did you consider that libraries are only referred to as libraries in English and we don’t have any (in my country that has libraries but calls them a non English word) because of that

How do people think these comments are anything other than purely frustrating attempts to derail a point?

The only mistakes experts made in the Challenger explosion was failing to draw pretty a enough picture to convince barely numerate management to stop the launch.

Right. And IIRC, at least one engineer knew the O-ring material was not proper during the build and design phase. And his protestations were ignored even then, long before there was any kind of launch. I could be misremembering though.

The point is not the specific incident. He could have used any incident to illustrate the point that sometimes experts make mistakes

I genuinely hate this type of stupid comment which nitpicks the analogy as opposed to discussing what it’s trying to explain.

“Yeah that data is getting stuck in there like a fly on a glue trap”

actually data isn’t a literal fly and thus it cannot become stuck in a metaphorical glue trap!!!”

Are you … that dumb?