Everyone seems to be reading this too simply. In fact, stupidly.

It's conceptually the easiest answer to the risk of asserting that you are certain, is simply don't assert that you are certain.

They aren't saying it's easy to face your bosses with anything they don't want to hear.

Isn't the definition of "easy" or "hard" that includes the external human pressures the less simple/stupid one? What is the utility of a definition of "easy" that assumes that you work in complete isolation?

Context.

The context to this conversation is the launch of a space shuttle that's supposed to carry a teacher to space. It has both enormous stakes and enormous political pressure to not delay/cancel. I'm unsure why that context makes the spherical cow version of "easy" a sensible one.

The context of that word "easy" was not a vacuum, it was part of a sentence which was part of a conversation. There is more than enough of this context to know what in particular was easy.

You can only fail to get this by not reading the thing you are responding to, or deliberate obtuseness, or perhaps by being 12 years old.

> easily be career-ending.

Easily be career ending? That's a bit dramatic, don't you think?. Someone who continuously says no to things will surely not thrive and probably eventually leave the organization, one way or the other, that's probably right.

Not even slightly dramatic. I have seen someone be utterly destroyed for trying to speak out on something deeply unethical a state was doing, and is probably still doing.

He was dragged by the head of state in the press and televised announcements, became untouchable overnight - lost his career, his wife died a few days later while at work at her government job in an “accident”. This isn’t in some tinpot dictatorship, rather a liberal western democracy.

So - no. Career-ending is an understatement. You piss the wrong people off, they will absolutely fuck you up.

A "liberal democracy" where the head of state can have random citizens murdered? And I guess despite being an internet anon, you won't name that country because they will come after you and kill your family as well?

That's either a very tall tale or the state is anything but liberal.

> A "liberal democracy" where the head of state can have random citizens murdered?

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, Arabic: عبدالرحمن العولقي; August 26, 1995 – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

The U.S. drone strike that killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was conducted under a policy approved by U.S. President Barack Obama

Human rights groups questioned why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States was not at war. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated "If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...

>Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

Missed highlighting that part. The boy also wasn't the target of the strike anyway. Was the wife from the other user's story living with an al-Qaeda leader as well?

> Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

You are a terrorist if you don't want a foreign power to install a government* over you and you fight to prevent that?

*that has to be noted were literally pedophiles

I think the WH spokesperson's response just adds to the level of disturbing:

>When pressed by a reporter to defend the targeted killing policy that resulted in Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's death, former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs deflected blame to the victim's father, saying, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business".

I’ve spoken about it here somewhat and circumspectly before - but I prefer to keep the SNR low, as I don’t want repercussions for him. Me, good luck finding.

It’s the U.K. It happened under Cameron. It related to the judiciary. That’s as much as I’ll comfortably reveal.

I will also say that it was a factor in me deciding to sell my business, leave the country, and live in the woods, as what I learned from him and his experience fundamentally changed my perception of the system in which we live.

In France, between 2013 and 2016, 40 people were killed (~one per month) by the French state (French) on direct order of President François Hollande:

https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2017/01/04/fra...

Yeah, the point that Obama literally executed US citizens without trial is often lost on people on this site, and on much of the "liberal" intelligentsia. They'll just say he was a "terrorist", but folks, you can't say whether he was or not, without trial. And even if he was, his son, who was also killed in that strike, was not a "terrorist". This is an extremely slippery slope, and the fact that people don't acknowledge this just because it was Obama who ordered the murder (let's call a spade a spade) is a damning indictment of "neoliberal values".

I have long thought that there ought to be an independently funded International Association for the Protection of Whistleblowers. However, it would quickly become a primary target of national intelligence agencies, so I don't know how long it would last.

Ask Snowden.

Can someone explain why every govt official that was ever in the news talking about Snowden acuse him of being the worst sort of criminal? Specifically what is the case, they are never forthcoming about details.

I personally am very glad to know the things he revealed.

For the same reason they’ve been torturing Assange for the past decade. They view us as little more than taxable cattle that should not ask any questions, let alone embarrass or challenge the ruling class.

Saying no isn't what ended his career.

> Saying no isn't what ended his career.

Within NatSec, saying No to embarrassing the government is implied. Ceaselessly.

Equally implied: The brutality of the consequences for not saying no.

Considering the launch tempo that NASA had signed up for, and was then currently failing at? Yes, a single 'no-go' on the cert chain could easily result in someone being shunted into professional obscurity thereafter.

Depends on the situation. If there exists little to no consequences then, sure, a "no" is just a "no".

When a "no" is a difference between your business or product succeeding versus not, then maybe the no will allow you to go farther. For example, how many "no"s did Cruise get before they had to shut down in SF? A leader taking that "no" and pivoting to remote monitoring+driving rather than committing to completely autonomous would have netted them another news article on this site -- instead, we get to read about Waymo.

But we talk about this as if there's only two versions: NASA's Challenger and absolute certainty with success. That's not the case and I am sure a lot of the failures from this "no" path has a lot less folks who are willing to do TedTalks on.