[ubercore]

I came in knowing the outcome, and roughly the point being made, but still found the conclusion of the slide hard to suss out. There were other failures in the chain as well for sure, but I don't think this is just a hit job on NASA vendors.

[giantg2]

The title of this post is claiming this slide killed 7 people. That's a pretty bold and accusatory claim that seems to leave out the other failures, right?

[TobTobXX]

From the article (emphasis mine):

> This, however, is the story of a PowerPoint slide that actually _helped_ kill seven people.

[giantg2]

Any evidence to support that claim? NASA employees raised concerns about the severity of the damage, which shows the contents of the slide were effectively communicated to NASA engineers, but that leaders ignored them. Thus the slide was not a contributor.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271525/It-better-d...

[amenod]

Pretty bad title for a blog post that talks about misleading powerpoint presentations. Some readers might make conclusions from the title alone, instead of reading the whole text below.

[lostcolony]

Yep; this slide was worse than useless in that to the given audience it could instead read as an endorsement that launching is fine.

[mypalmike]

Please read the article so you don't come across as ill informed. This was not a launch/no launch decision.

[giantg2]

This wasn't about a launch decision. An audience of engineers would not view this slide as an endorsement.