zlacker

[return to "The Who Cares Era"]
1. 0_____+U5[view] [source] 2025-05-28 13:44:58
>>NotInO+(OP)
I was just kvetching about this to my partner over breakfast. Not exactly, but a parallel observation, that a lot of people are just kind of shit at their jobs.

The utility tech who turned my tiny gas leak into a larger gas leak and left.

The buildings around me that take the better part of a decade to build (really? A parking garage takes six years?)

Cops who have decided it's their job to do as little as possible.

Where I live, it seems like half the streets don't have street signs (this isn't a backwater where you'd expect this, it's Boston).

I made acquaintance to a city worker who, to her non-professional friends, is very proud that she takes home a salary for about two hours of work per day following up with contractors, then heading to the gym and making social plans.

There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

◧◩
2. sp0rk+ic[view] [source] 2025-05-28 14:28:05
>>0_____+U5
> There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

I think pride in work has declined a lot (at least in the US) because so many large employers have shown that they aren't even willing to pretend to care about their employees. It's difficult to take pride in work done for an employee that you aren't proud of, or actively dislike.

◧◩◪
3. palmot+Mf[view] [source] 2025-05-28 14:48:46
>>sp0rk+ic
>> There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

> I think pride in work has declined a lot (at least in the US) because so many large employers have shown that they aren't even willing to pretend to care about their employees. It's difficult to take pride in work done for an employee that you aren't proud of, or actively dislike.

Also don't discount the pressure exerted by employers to explicitly encourage mediocrity. So often, there's a huge amount of pressure to implement a half-working kludge and never pursue a more appropriate/complete fix. IMHO, it's all due to the focus on short-term financial results and ever present budget pressures that encourage kicking the can down the road.

If your employer is explicitly discouraging you from doing a good job, what are you supposed to do? Some people will resist, but they're definitely swimming against the current.

◧◩◪◨
4. Walter+pm[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:23:46
>>palmot+Mf
> it's all due to the focus on short-term financial results

I've heard that my whole life. If that were generally true, company stocks would be going steadily downwards.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. toomuc+8n[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:27:17
>>Walter+pm
GE [1]? Boeing [2] [3]? The stocks go up because management and shareholders pull forward the gains as financialization destroys the long term value of the enterprises. Works until it doesn't.

[1] Power Failure: The downfall of General Electric - >>44102034 - May 2025

[2] Fatal Recklessness at Boeing Traces Back to Long-Standing C-Suite Greed - https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/boeing-corporate-... - April 9th, 2024

[3] HN Search: Boeing - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Aunche+gy[view] [source] 2025-05-28 16:29:45
>>toomuc+8n
> Fatal Recklessness at Boeing Traces Back to Long-Standing C-Suite Greed

I suspect this is true to a certain extent, but IMO this narrative has been exaggerated to the point where it is completely useless. If Boeing execs were only focused on "short term profits," how did commercial aviation deaths decrease despite there being significantly more flights?

https://www.statista.com/chart/4854/commercial-aviation-deat...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. toomuc+my[view] [source] 2025-05-28 16:30:38
>>Aunche+gy
> Works until it doesn't.

Boeing 737 Max: The troubled history of fatal crashes and 346 deaths in 7 years - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/busi... - July 8th, 2024

As Boeing looks to buy a key 737 supplier [Spirit AeroSystems], a whistleblower says the problems run deep - https://www.npr.org/2024/06/16/nx-s1-4998520/boeing-737-spir... - June 16th, 2024

Boeing’s Decline Traced to Decades of Catering to Shareholders Above All Others - https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/quick-take/boeings-decline-traced-... - April 8th, 2024

Boeing’s long fall, and how it might recover - https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein... - April 7th, 2024

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Aunche+CG[view] [source] 2025-05-28 17:14:58
>>toomuc+my
Are there actually more issues or are people just more aware of them? Like I said, commercial airline flights are significantly safer than they were in Boeing's supposed golden era despite these publicized scandals.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. toomuc+PG[view] [source] 2025-05-28 17:16:16
>>Aunche+CG
If your position is "well, it lasted this long and the organizational rot only killed a few hundred people" we may be unable to meet on this topic. How many deaths would be sufficient? I argue the decline in fatalities over time is due to commercial air traffic regulations and systems.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-flying-keeps-getting-safer-0...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. Aunche+UP[view] [source] 2025-05-28 18:00:47
>>toomuc+PG
> "well, it lasted this long and the organizational rot only killed a few hundred people"

It should be clear that is not what I meant. This reinforces my view that popular criticism towards Boeing is unhelpful and ironically is relevant to the posted essay. People care more about gotchas more than deep discussion.

If the 737 Max incidents were due to negligence on Boeing's part, the many of the incidents in the 70s were also due to negligence. You can't have it both ways.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. toomuc+3S[view] [source] 2025-05-28 18:15:18
>>Aunche+UP
It’s not meant as a gotcha. It’s meant to illustrate that the effects of financialization, stripping an enterprise of its value, and the culture that enables this (of which short termism is a component) can take some time for the symptoms to surface. Boeing cared more about profits than safety, this is what the evidence shows. If you disagree, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. I believe I’ve supported my thesis adequately with citations. It was a long corporate journey to the crash sites, but the journey is well documented.

(GE also took substantial time to fall apart, but with no deaths to my knowledge)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. spwa4+6Wp[view] [source] 2025-06-08 07:32:00
>>toomuc+3S
The problem is that the opposite is as destructive. Doing new things WILL cause accidents. And in the case of Boeing, of course it will result in planes failing.

And the "solution" to any level of this kind of criticism is really easy: do less, eventually do nothing at all anymore. But, in truth, that's even more destructive, in fact that that's happening is what this whole thread is about.

We need a balance. There needs to be some tolerance for risk, certainly at companies like Boeing.

[go to top]