• OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        It sounds like neither of us know the answer to that, so I choose not to comment on that matter.

        I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way.

        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.

        • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • OpenStars@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • OpenStars@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

              • OpenStars@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                  • OpenStars@discuss.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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:-).

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.