Technology

59169 readers

2568 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

[email protected]

617

F.A.A. Audit of Boeing’s 737 Max Production Found Dozens of Issues (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Without paywall: https://archive.ph/2Ir4Q

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a measurement on an arbitrary scale. Nothing I've said is news to anyone who designs safety critical systems. I'm certainly not saying that safety isn't important or that we can't assess it. What I'm saying is that placing a number on that assessment will always stray into the realm of politics in a way that physics and mathematics never does. It lulls ignorant people into the belief that something is safe or not safe. They feel safe because they've been told it is safe or vice versa. Physics doesn't care if you feel safe.

It's notable that contemporary safety standards such as ISO 26262 generally avoid numerical assessments, for the reasons outlined above.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

First Incidents per hour is not arbitrary. These numbers compare very well to daily activities such as walking, driving, bathing, eating, swimming so that non specialists have a good idea of how much risk an activity carries by comparing it to an activity they're familiar with.

Secondly ISO 26262 produces ASILs as its output which are qualitative, but still based on probably assessments in terms of chance of incidence per hour. The reason for qualitative instead of quantitative assessments of the more general SILs (based on IEC61508, the parent of ISO 26262) is that qualitative is cheaper than quantitative and the automotive industry is full of corner cutting.

Third, aircraft use QUANTITATIVE risk assessments based on ARP476, so risk can be directly measured and mathematicaly compared to any other activity. When people say "flying is safer than driving" it's not arbitrary, it's based on real math. The same math the FAA is using to find safety issues in the Boeing production line.

Fourth

I'm certainly not saying that safety isn't important or that we can't assess it.

Is this you?

safety isn't a thing we can measure.