https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

The Intermediate People's Court in Shijiazhuang sentenced a farmer, Zhang Yujun, and a senior manager, Geng Jinping, to death in 2009. five more people received life sentences and the main company behind it went bankrupt.

this was for four infant deaths.

Boeing killed 189 indonesians in 2021 and executives didnt so much as take a breather at the country club between swings, so good luck.

Capitalism just isnt set up to punish the Bourgeois.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision (2011)

40 people died in train collision, and then:

> On orders from the authorities, the rescue effort concluded less than a day following the accident, and the damaged train cars were seen being broken apart by backhoes and buried nearby. The Railway Ministry justified the burial by claiming that the trains contained valuable "national level" technology that could be stolen. However, hours after the rescuers had been told to stop searching for survivors, a 2-year-old girl was found alive in the wreckage.

So, basically, all we know is that Chinese political system is set up to protect powerful people (such as politicians who are overseeing national rail projects). On the other hand, a local milk dealer is expendable, just as he would be in America.

The main difference is whether these powerful people are called "bourgeois" or something else.

Its not a problem of capitalism its a problem of a judicial system having no balls to put execs in prison.

The US had one of these scandals too. nobody was arrested, no one charged. Tammany Hall politician Alderman Michael Tuomey, known as "Butcher Mike", defended the distillers vigorously throughout the scandal—in fact, he was put in charge of the Board of Health investigation.

The guy basically ended all investigation and shielded all guilty parties.

In 1850, we were in the buildup to the civil war and hadn’t even ended slavery, the political and legal environment were drastically different. I’m not suggesting there aren’t lessons to learn but the comparison is ridiculous.

You don’t need a campaign finance problem to get regulatory capture. Only industry insiders have the context to regulate industries. They come from industry, they know and are known by all the players, and back to industry is where they want options to return. They see the world in terms other insiders do and they don’t want to burn any bridges. This is a recipe for industry getting what they want in most cases.

Parent was talking about root cause, not cause.

In the US, corporations, through campaign contributions, lobbying, etc. have influence at all levels of governance. In the end this requires money above all.

The conclusion that the system (including the judical one) is rigged in favor of such coroporations has "something" to do with capitalism isn't too far fetched.

Or for the case at hand: your point would be that the 346 people didn't die because of Boing taking shortcuts for profit; they rather died because their resp. planes fell out of the sky? ;)

Much more talented and studied folks than I have explored this in depth, which you can find if you google capitalism and it's entanglement with the foundation of the USA.

Please read your own link. There were coverups and censorship galore. The problem was this story eventually got so big it could no longer be swept under the rug like so many things were and still are.

> We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation.

https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities

Maybe the people responsible are the people who say they’re responsible?

That would imply that Congress derived its just power from the constitution, yet I see no power that authorized the FAA in the first place...

Thus per the 10th amendment that power should be rightfully reserved to the People and the States.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

> The Constitution gives Congress substantial power to establish federal government offices. As an initial matter, the Constitution vests the legislative power in Congress.1 Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers.2 The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise of its more specific authorities.3 The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices.4 Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives.5 The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.6

Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article 1 as to them "Necessary and Proper Clause" makes everything congress deems " Necessary and Proper Clause" to be constitution, a moronic interpretation of the Constitution who's entire purpose was to limit federal power.

The current court is set to role back some of that, I hope it does but it is unlikely they will go as far I want them to... Which includes going all the way back and reversing Wickard v. Filburn and every decision that built off that wrong.

It's a partisan assertion of a narrow political group, not generally accepted. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the assertion, but to say it's somehow a truth generally acknowledged is false.

That's said The arguments against Congressional delegation to the executive existed long before qanon and the arguments of limited congressional power date back to before 1789 so unless q anon existed in 1700's then you're just using a modern fringe group in a very poor attempt to sideline the conversation no different than calling everything that you disagree with racist or sexist or some other ism

For there still this idea that Congress and the executive should work together as a novel one and not one shared by the Constitution separately equal is critical to the functioning of our governance The key word there being separate.

The cozy relationship between the executive and Congress is a problem

It doesn’t literally explicitly contain regulations regarding air travel, because it did not exist in the 1700s.

If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it...

But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required

However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc

The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.

Only a state can challenge a law based on the Supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people at large.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of some rights does not mean people don't have other, unenumerated rights.

Nor would such an opinion apply to corporations.

You do not get "rights" which are the ability to ignore federal law because you decided the federal government wasn't allowed to do something.

The only successful challenges have been based on enumerated rights outside of states sueing based on the tenth.

Why?

Imagine if you were tasked with making sure that your app's customer's data were safe. Your boss goes against your recommendation and does something you know will put sensitive data in the hands of hackers. What would you do?

It's weird because a comment like "these executives deserve to be raped as punishment" would be considered disgusting and unfunny: frankly, you'd probably be made a social pariah for saying something like that. That statement is morally equivalent to the "pounding in the ass prison" statement, which is far more socially acceptable.

I genuinely think it's something that future generations will look back upon in horror.

For example, instead of ranting and howling about prisons and guillotines, you could point to some successful examples of other companies or orgs that have operated in a similar fashion. That might provide more productive grounds for further discussion. Any good examples?

... Yeah, I thought so.

Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? They're getting crushed by SpaceX at rockets. How much more of this incompetence will it take before someone does the same to them with airliners? Relying on being "too big to fail" isn't a viable long term strategy. It only lowers the barrier to entry for competitors.

Is it your assertion that they can't get any worse? Because this sounds like a good way to get worse.

You know, they could be killing more than 0.5 people per ten billion passenger miles, right...?

For air travel impacting human lives.

I think it speaks to current generation of leaders avoiding thought, consideration, foresight, insight, and just using any statistic that can justify a decision.

It’s a decline and one that also explains the excitement that LLMs/AI might be able to help us think less, know less, and perhaps be even less responsible for our work products.

A whole door exploded out of a plane and

1. The plane did not suffer structural damage and could land safely 2. Nobody died because seat belts are mandatory 3. The crew is drilled over and over on what to do 4. The plane has extensive monitoring and logging so RCA is easier 5. The US funds a whole org dedicated to investigating this sort of thing and the results are public

and that's just the ones I can think of.

This is shocking precisely because aviation is so good at this. There are multiple layers in the swiss cheese model and this somehow made it past them.

What we're hearing in this thread, from people who have clearly never done much of anything, is that passenger aviation needs to work exactly the same way. "If it can't be perfect, heads must roll. Surely that will fix it."

If this is a genuine comment it’s worth thinking about why you reached straight to defend egregiously bad engineering and manufacturing.

Self driving is a different risk profile, even if you engineer it to the best of human knowledge — people still don’t understand why, and can’t ask why, the system in control of multiple ton vehicles being beta tested ‘in production with human lives’ and marketed as FSD, makes the decisions it makes. Or at least they can’t immediately tell it not to drive into trucks. Which is quite a straightforward thing to ask of a driving control system.

None of those asks are perfection, or more than we’d expect from a child let alone ‘humans’ as a species

You know that current management's numbers are a lot worse than that right?

I wish I knew what would, believe me. I have to deal with the exact same problem, luckily in a factory where there is a lot less at stake.

I just disagree with some proposed solutions in the thread, that's all. Also don't necessarily agree that the situation was any better in the past.

SpaceX has (ok, had) good PR, but they don't do anything others couldn't do. And they'd be bankrupt without NASA.

Most companies would be bankrupt without their customers. A $5 billion government contract isn’t something that can be dismissed as the recipient ‘being kept solvent by Uncle Sam.’

OK, pick a random person and tell them, "Congratulations, you're now the CEO of Boeing. You will be paid $100,000 a year, because fuck overpaid CEOs, amirite? And if you fail at running Boeing, we'll imprison or kill you. Deal?"

I swear, it's like arguing with 8-year-olds on this site nowadays.

It’s been used to escape responsibility and shirk transparency entirely too much, and if orgs can’t be trusted with it (as they evidently cannot) then they don’t deserve to have it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html