Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have read similar quotes about most modern aircraft development programs, yet aviation is quite safe. The fact you can find a few alarmists in a company of 160,000 is rather unsurprising.

Those quotes would be much more convincing if those employees put every prediction they ever made on the record, not just the ones that turned out to be sort-of right in hindsight.

From manager's perspective, you can't listen to everyone complaining about being rushed, understaffed, and underfunded (, because everyone looking to cover their butts in a bureaucracy does all three). On the other hand, you have to be on the lookout for credible issues.



You cannot have it both ways. First you claim that no one spoke up and then you dismiss the ones who did as alarmists


If someone does not make specific and testable predictions which turn out to be right, they are useless alarmists. If you want to read about how to assess predictors (and improve predictions), I suggest you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_...


I'm a very good forecaster, and skill in this area doesn't stem from reflexive dismissal or ability to deploy fallacious counter-arguments.


Would you please point out the fallacy?


Bifurcation


I did not present a false choice between two options, I only defined what an alarmist is. I regard alarmists as an extreme on the spectrum of forecasters.

Bifurcating would have been saying that everyone is either a superforecaster or an alarmist, and I never said that.

You may not agree with me, but that doesn't mean that I fell into a logical fallacy.


If someone does not make specific and testable predictions which turn out to be right, they are useless alarmists.

This conversation doesn't seem like it's going to go anywhere productive.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: