[K0balt]

Im onboard with examining the social costs around technology, and business should be held accountable for the harm and costs that they externalize in the name of quarterlies. That is long overdue.

But to shoehorn it into the actionable and very direct context around aviation safety is a bit disingenuous. When a server crashes, the normal result is that it costs money. When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.

It doesn’t seem that they make a good metaphorical pair.

[still_grokking]

> When a server crashes, the normal result is that it costs money.

IT security isn't only about "not crashing servers".

> When an airliner crashes, hundreds of people die.

I've just showed examples where likely hundreds of people died because of missing impact evaluation on IT systems.

I think this is related.

As long as people don't see this nothing will change.

So yes, maybe my context switch is a little bit drastic. But this was the intend: To show similarities in outcomes and at the same time the hubris that things aren't taken seriously in the one case where they are taken very very serous in the other case, regardless of identical outcomes.

[K0balt]

I’m with you on the impact, especially going forward, of overall data infrastructure integrity. Failures in this realm will increasingly put the well being of people at stake.

My objection was more of the “catastrophic IT failure rarely causes direct physical harm, whereas catastrophic failures in aviation almost always results in fatalities” variety.

But yes, data infrastructure integrity is definitely an issue that must be treated as critical, and increasingly, as a life safety issue in some cases.

Although I feel like referencing self harm is not really in good faith here , because if that was a rational connection we should also be talking about treating interpersonal relations and good manners as a life safety issue in the same way that we regulate aviation.