1237
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
1237 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58164 readers
3700 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tbf the evidence for the second person is not strong - that stuff does legit happen.
But the first guy? Damn! That's enough right there.
Well isn't there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?
I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way. The first one was ruled as maybe just being some very very freak thing to happen, but it happening twice made it entirely implausible to be without systematic cause.
And well now it is happening twice in a few years with Boeing that weird things happen twice in a row with little time in between in relation to critical security flaws.
It sounds like neither of us know the answer to that, so I choose not to comment on that matter.
But how does that apply? One guy was a "suicide", the other was bacteria - you just said it yourself, the metric only works if they crash "in the exact same way", therefore by your own words, this seems to not apply?
There is a natural human bias to want to "know" things. Sometimes we even make shit up out of desperation to fill that void, but the more honest way (but HARD to do, emotionally, as in it seriously goes against the grain of our pattern-finding brain's natural instinctual algorithms) is to simply say "I do not know the answer here". Please don't misunderstand me as saying that it is likely that the second guy was not killed - that would be 100% tangential to what I am trying to convey!
Rather, I am saying that the first guy looks to have been Epstein-ed, but we don't know enough yet about the second guy. Could you imagine someone sent to kill him, and having a whole plan in place so that he wouldn't even make it home but rather be taken care of in the car on the way there, but then he dies in his hospital bed first -> do you still get paid!?:-P Asking the important questions here!!:-D
But again, what happened to the first guy is already enough to know that some shady shit is going on. And yeah, that should make us think twice about the second guy... but having done so, I think that we just don't know enough there to make a firm determination like we could for the first guy, without additional evidence. Which does not absolve Boeing one iota for being so shitty for the last few years.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
years
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I agree, that we cannot rule either death to be an assassination by itself. But their distinct occurrence in this context, e.g. that they prevent whistleblowers from testifying warrants an in depth investigation into both of them. In particular given the circumstances it is sketchy if Police or other officials are eager to close the case and rule it as non assassinations, without actually analyzing what was going on.
I don't know the relevant laws there - but I am certain that an autopsy would have been done? Beyond that, what more could be done? If that means a more expensive autopsy, then yeah they should do that - even Boeing might agree on that point, to help absolve them, even if they did somehow give the bacteria to the guy, but like if they were confident that it could not be traced to them in that manner.
Speaking of, even if they were guilty in this second case, that's a very different thing than someone being able to prove it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational bedrock principle in the USA, and we cannot simply throw that away without losing something precious.
And with them being military contractors, they probably have classified status to where local police can't just go subpoenaing their records willy nilly. I could be wrong though. Then again, if they are used to dealing with the likes of e.g. literal Russian spies, then surely they would be smart enough to not leave a paper trail on something like this to begin with?
But the first guy should already be enough to start an investigation. The second guy... I dunno what that one means, maybe yes but also might not be.
There can be far more done than just an autopsy in the second case. Is there a register who has entered and left the building? Is there camera footage showing anyone accessing the room that had no business being there? Is there anything unusual in the nurses schedules? Were all procedures followed according to the rules, especially sanitary rules?
These are all things that should be investigated. If they show no signs of irregularities then the case can be closed. If there is irregularities, then these need to be investigated further, and then the question of motive comes into play, where there is one party with a very strong motive to silence the guy.
I presumed all of that would already be done. Then again, perhaps not. Then again, a giant military industrial contractor may have ways around such anyway, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't look, though either way I would expect the situation to at least superficially look innocent.
You could write a letter, maybe get a petition signed to back it up, to the hospital and ask that their internal security do such? Or the police in that local area.
sadfsdfasfasf
Tbf, you did come out fairly condescending and combative, telling people what to do and how wrong they are, and even essentially calling them names. Putting aside being correct or not, people don't take kindly to being told in that manner!:-P
But it's not all bad, and that separates this place from Reddit. The latter I just never visit anymore, b/c there is simply no longer any point to do so. In contrast, this place is full of crap... but it's not all crap, and that's... well that's... something, I guess:-).
Also, I kid - it's generally significantly better than crap - it definitely contains crap, but it's also got a lot of good stuff too.:-)
This post though is probably a lost cause indeed:-P.
You’re right, I should have used a little more honey on this one. For what it’s worth, the comment I wrote before it was not quite as antagonistic. I think I’m just so surprised at how readily everybody slipped on tinfoil hats in this thread. It’s like watching how the right handled Seth Rich. That family didn’t deserve deserve that, and no investigation any group could ever do will ever convince them Hillary Clinton didn’t order his death. It’s not right.
As Lemmy grows, it will attract all kinds of people. And many - e.g. lemmygrad.ml and the person who wrote the Lemmy code to begin with - are outright tankies (as far as I understand that word, it seems to mean: die-hard communists, aka such extreme leftists that they have wrapped around to becoming authoritarian rightists except with left-wing talking points, which ofc they do not see the irony in that, thinking that the correctness of their cause entitles them to act in an identical manner as the "other side" that they purportedly despise).
And like Reddit, some are literal and actual children, or at least younger people, so there's that to consider.
But aside from all of that, people are people, and that's just the way it is, I suppose. And even on top of that, sometimes as we dig we find that we have more in common than first appeared, so some of it is pure communication style. e.g. someone saying "let's not hastily jump to conclusions" and someone saying "hey, we should investigate this!" might be saying the same thing, in a roundabout way. Plus too many react to the "tone" of a message more than its content, and on and on it goes...
All we can do is focus on our own parts that we ourselves have control over:-).
I understand that, but when it comes to public forums, it’s important that people stand up and say “no, this is wrong.“ I probably shouldn’t get bogged down in arguments with people, but the initial statement is incredibly important in my opinion. Otherwise more people will start to normalize the thinking.
Exactly! It's literally a service done to the Truth, which is the main goal for many of us, not to have a feeling of being "correct" or lording that over others or vengeance against someone we do not particularly like as in out- vs. in-group dynamics, but rather to rise above all of that shit and find stuff that really matters.
Put another way: if I make a correct statement, and then follow it up with two incorrect statements, then people should not trust me, hrm? Or Lemmy. Or perhaps this community. "They" get to then state how "wrong" we are - correctly! And making the other side be correct... is something that we should revile and fill us with disgust:-D.
Which is why perhaps how we say something is almost as important as what we say, I am learning, and thought I would share that also with you. Full disclosure: I am usually very bad at it, which is why I want to learn to get better.
Again, a dozen whistleblowers now, and 2 died fairly quickly after coming out.
*after agreeing to testify
Maybe Boeing will learn from their mistakes and go for using their relatives as leverage or tarnishing their reputation by framing them with treason instead.
sadfsdfasfasf
I don’t know if that’s a rule of thumb or not, but it certainly makes sense.
First, the world of reliability runs on data and math. Lots of statistics, of course.
And second, aircraft are over-engineered for safety margins on top of safety margins. The test data might say you need a part that’s X thickness of aluminum in order to be 99% sure to never fail in the field. So let’s just make it 3X thickness to be safe!
So from that standpoint, back to back failures should pretty much always draw a bunch of attention in this industry.
I did do the math on it and the second guy only had a 1 in 3630 chance of dying of natural causes in that time window.
sadfsdfasfasf
https://lemmy.world/comment/9809397
I admit I am not a stats guy. Please tell me what I did wrong in my math. Totally open to being corrected here.
You don’t just take the entire population and calculate the odds that they will contract and/or die of something. For instance, I could trivialize bike injuries/deaths in the US because countless people do not commute regularly on their bikes. Hell tens of millions don’t even have one and haven’t ridden a bike since they were children. The stat isn’t super useful unless we are discussing how many regular cyclists get hurt. Otherwise countless non-cyclists dilute the useful information - if they don’t ride bikes, they aren’t at risk at all. And that’s not even taking into account locale. Different population densities,topographies, etc. have different risks. But we can set that aside for now as I think you likely get what I’m driving at there.
MRSA affects more specific demographics and conditions. Somebody who is older who contracts pneumonia and enters a hospital is far more likely than the average population to contract it - and it has a 10-20% lethality which is extremely high - so their risk has to be assessed in that context.
If we only compared it against the general population, then hospitals would simply go “well in the grand scheme of things not many people die of MRSA.“ When what they’re (correctly) saying is “if you are elderly and have pneumonia we need to really watch out for MRSA.” Because that is a real risk.
At 45 he’s not elderly but he’s within the range we see with MRSA unfortunately and pneumonia is a huge trigger for it (compromised immune system open to secondary infection). It’s incredibly resistant to antibiotics/cleaning supplies and is a real killer. Because hospitals clean so much it’s actually more likely to happen there than in “the real world“ because it gets selected out.
So he isn’t super young (least contributing factor), he has pneumonia (big contributing factor), and is in a hospital (where it almost exclusively occurs). His odds were higher than that of the general population the same way if you go skydiving you have a higher chance of dying from falling to your death than the average population.
Ok can you give me an actual number?
I wasn’t going to say anything, but it does irritate me when people ask me to go do their research for them and then ghost after. At least have the decency to say you didn’t read it or blew it off.
I felt no need to respond because you twice didn't answer the question I asked.
What are the odds that a 45 year old would die in a 75 day time period?
Just a simple number and how you got it. This is the third time I have asked.
What kind of question is that? I don’t even know how you would do the math on that or why you chose it. So, what? The odds that any 45-year-old at any given time will die within 75 days of turning 45? Or within some window of 75 days within the the 365 day period of being 45? The question is nonsensical. I’m not even sure what you were trying to answer.
There you have your answer. Now kindly piss off. You’ve ignored everything I’ve written and it’s clear you just don’t understand stats. It’s not a crime to not know it, but making up questions off the top of your head that don’t address the actual question we are asking is not productive and I am tired of wasting my time.
I’ve already written out the numbers in multiple comments. 50,000-100,000 cases a year, 5,000-10,000 deaths a year. Not everyone gets pneumonia every year, not everyone is equally healthy/unhealthy or has other factors that can make it more likely, not everyone is the same age, etc. So you can’t just apply this to the entire country. What the exact number is is not critical to understanding that. For the same reason not everybody has to worry about being killed on their bike on the way to work. Because not everybody rides a bike to work. I don’t need to show you numbers for everything in the bike claim, it is true/obvious at face value. Unless we have reason to debate whether or not literally every person bikes to work. Do you see my point? Every American is not equally susceptible to contracting MRSA at any given time. I can’t give you the exact number, but I think we can agree the “eligible” population is not anywhere near the total population.
The number of cases and the number of deaths associated, as well pneumonia/MRSA infection/ while hospitalized, is well documented. You can find stuff from the NIH and beyond about this. It’s a very serious issue that hospitals have never been able to truly fix. A cursory search would show you this, I’m sure there are a dozen major articles you could find in no time.
~~We do ourselves no favors by sounding like conspiracy nutjobs who are uninterested in facts. When they go low, we should retain the high road, imho.~~
Edit: this... basically means tangentially what I had intended to say, so it is better off to be deleted, though I will leave it as strikethrough for the historical record (I really hate all those "deleted" messages, and don't want to contribute one of my own too!).
Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number. Now, will attacking me bring those two murdered men back to life?
I apologize for my wording - I agree with you that I was out of line. There was some point I was trying to make, about the need to be cautious with our wording, but somehow I ended up doing the exact thing I was trying to warn about, didn't I? Fwiw I don't actually think that you suck at all - I was just really, Really, REALLY bad at expressing myself there.:-) Thank you for not returning the favor in like manner.
You good. Enjoy your weekend
You too!:-)