Although not especially “current,” Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies is a 1984 book by Yale sociologist Charles Perrow, which analyses complex systems from a sociological perspective. Perrow argues that multiple and unexpected failures are built into society's complex and tightly coupled systems, and that accidents are unavoidable and cannot be designed around. Several historical disasters are analysed. I read a newer edition published in 1999, and the author had added a chapter on Chernobyl, which turned out to be a textbook example of some Perrow’s theory (in particular, that adding fail-safes also adds complexity, thus not necessarily making for any more safety. The Chernobyl disaster was precipitated at least in part, because they were on a tight schedule to test a fail-safe system.) The book is fascinating and a good page turner, hard to put down.
Perrow’s book is best combined with a reading of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, by Daniel Ellsberg.
I'm a retired neurosurgical anesthesiologist (38 years in practice). I read Perrow's book several years after it was published. I was struck by how relevant his points of failure were to the practice of anesthesiology, the concept of the danger of tight coupling. I referred to this book over subsequent decades in my presentations on Grand Rounds, but to my knowledge none of the residents or other attendings ever read it.
Other books I’ve much enjoyed, when your interest is in structural or other failures:
Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail by Matthys Levy and Mario Salvadori, a wide ranging history of structural failures of various kinds, and their causes.
Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants by John Drury Clark, which is a personal memoir from a senior researcher with many decades experience developing rocket fuels - he is the proverbial Rocket Scientist. Most interesting, and amusing (in a morbid way), is the quite different culture of safety “back in the day” of this somewhat esoteric engineering/chemistry field.
Sure. Even a history of safety success contributes to this. We haven't had an accident in 3000 days, what was dangerous about this job again? Also what's this stupid policy for anyway, I've never seen anybody even come close to (non-dangerous-sounding fate) while working here.
But probably the policy is in place because it used to happen before the policy was in place. It's just not obvious to people who have never seen the consequences before.
Complacency kills! It's why it's usually the old farmers that die in stupid ways.
I'm also reminded of the Yale machine shop safety supervisor who died by getting herself wound around a lathe spindle. Working alone, late at night on powerful rotating machinery wearing loose clothing.
>Michele Dufault, a 22-year-old physics and astronomy major from Scituate, Massachusetts, was asphyxiated after her hair caught in a lathe in a Sterling Chemistry Laboratory machine shop, where she was working by herself in violation of the existing safety rules.
Hmmm. I was positive that at the time the report came out, they said that she was actually one of the people assigned to monitor machine shop users for safety issues. Maybe that got confused with her taking the advanced safety classes.
Inviting Disaster: Lessons From the Edge of Technology was one of the texts for an aerospace class I didn't take but friends did, but honestly you can just read the book.
There are lots of frameworks for teaching safety and programs for compliance and such but they are far too easy to cargo cult if you don't appreciate safety and the need for safety culture and UNDERSTAND what failures look like.
And when you really understand the need and how significant failures happened... "state of the art" tools and practices take a back seat, they can be useful but they're just tools. What you need is people developing the appropriate vision, and with that the right things tend to follow.
The STPA and CAST handbooks are available for free from the MIT Partnership for Systems Approaches to Safety and Security website. They are phenomenal.
Wow thats a name I haven't heard in a long time! I really miss the way tacops 2.2 felt, never did get along with 3.x versions. Was definitely a formative gaming experience for me as well
What does this mean? Is there a list of approved conversation allowed on trails? What difference does it make if they are talking to someone virtually or physically present on the trail?
I guess it depends. When you're talking to a person directly, most likely your ears aren't blocked. So you get the feedback of your voice levels, and adjust accordingly. This is really difficult to do when you have earphones in, blocking everything. Usually people with both earphones in tend to raise their voices nearly to a shouting level. I don't know if OP does that or not though.
It's more that their full attention isn't on the meeting at hand - how can it be when they're wandering some nature trail taking it all in? If I spent a week busting my ass to get some feature shipped, and in a sprint re-cap meeting all I see is my boss wandering a forest trail going "Uh-hu, uh-hu, wow there's a red-breasted warbler..." I'd become very upset.
That’s not true, you should try it. My full attention is on the call. Walking the trail, as it’s also the same trail everyday, is fully on autopilot.
Really. Your comment kind of annoys me because it seems you have no experience of this, while I have several years experience of it, yet you are sure that you know better than me what my experience of it is?
Edit: Also, my teams know about it and all agree with it, some of them do walks themselves.
Are we gatekeeping walks and meetings now? You can walk and talk and not annoy other people -- if other people are even around. You can also walk and talk and give enough attention to your meeting. Use your judgement.
177ms from west coast of NA, but that is slower than I would have estimated. Other than HN, almost everything else I use regularly feels subjectively way slower, although I've not checked response time.
Congrats! Ordered. Been waiting for a physical copy, being able to scribble notes in the margins and bookmark and flip back and forth by hand just works so much better for me.
I think the big problem here was with Starcraft 2's lack of UMS and chat room focus compared to Brood War. I played competitive 1v1 in both, and anecdotally I spent alot more time in Brood War, and much of that time was socializing, playing casual games, and UMS--largely with friends who didn't play competitively.
This community was completely destroyed by SC2, multiplayer really only appealed to serious competitive players. It sucked unless you only wanted to grind ladder. That community kept the game as a whole alive and acted as a gateway.
