Trusting technology is just plain foolish on anything that mattersOriginally Posted by keith micinski
Guest
Trusting technology is just plain foolish on anything that matters
Member
Not sure why you would see any contradiction there, assuming you are not trying to split hair.
Whether I use a SS or not (that is pre-SS days), I exercise cautions at all times. But that does not mean I can not increase my level of consciousness or awareness when I work with certain tasks.
When a soldier is on duty and stays alerted, it does not mean he or she cannot be extra alerted when he or she senses certain danger either because of sight or sound.
Tell me where you don't understand about not lowering one's consciousness and increasing one's awareness. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Simon
Member
Do you fly?
Or do you drive a car with computer chips?
Our modern lives all depend on technology.
All patients who undergo major surgeries depend on technology to keep them alive.
Trusting technology is not foolish but a necessity, as long as it is the right and proven technology.
Simon
Contributor
He said he did not know what happened so I stopped at that point in the video. I am not a psychic and his esp did not work on me.
I hate most videos. he just drones on and on and never did say what happened. A title might have said something but since he did not know I do not care.
From other posters I guess he ran his finger into the blade and was surprised it got cut and the magic saw stop did not prevent all injury. Kind of like the folks who are surprised a bullet proof vest still hurts when you get shot.
Bill D
Contributor
This is Alex.
We could learn a lot from Alex.
A lot about living your life how you see fit.
A lot about risk.
A lot about safety.
If i wanted to learn to Climb with or without ropes, i would study Alex.
Guest
Yep, the pilots who fly, ATC who control, and the engineers who designed the aircraft don't trust tech either. That's why there's redundancy, often times in triplicate or better, built into any critical system. Why do you think there's two pilots? They don't trust organic means either.
I do, and when there's danger to me having to walk when it's -40º outside, I carry winter gear when something fails. Which seems to have less and less possibility of something going wrong with every generation, but all it takes is one of a thousand parts failing and you're a popsicle when you live in a tough winter climate.
Most yes. But what happens when something catastrophic happens? Say a big solar flare and the resulting EMP that takes us back to the 1800's in a matter of minutes? The mormons have it right, you should have supplies on hand. The reptilian brain takes over pretty quickly when the stomach is empty long enough.
And while the results aren't too bad, patients that should have lived often times don't. Heck, prescription drugs is one of the largest killers in the USA.
Necessity doesn't make trusting it any more foolish. YouTube hero is a pretty simple example of that.
Guest
You should have the thousand yard stare with the tool before you even power it up. You are saying your mentality changes with and without the guard. That is a poor approach.
Member
And if Alex falls, I wouldn't feel at all sorry for Alex. He did it to himself.
Contributor
Martin's way of saying this is a bit more provocative than how I would, but he's essentially right. People who design complex, potentially dangerous systems understand and assume in their engineering that components will fail from time to time, and operators will make mistakes or fail to perform to requirements from time to time. So in addition to the effort we put into making sure the technology is as reliable as we can get it, and people are well trained, to the degree possible, we design every process and it's associated toolset so that the failure of a component or actor won't result in catastrophic harm. That's how you minimize adverse outcomes - injuries, production failures, etc.
Which makes much of the discussion in this thread rather foolish itself. There are no silver bullets. If your goal is to minimize imjuries, you don't choose safe technique or safe tools, you focus on safe technique using safe tools.
But if Martin is fair in some sense in saying even in highly safety conscious and successful industries, like commercial aviation, people "don't trust" technology, it's a rather misleading oversimplification. We certainly rely on technology, albeit with a healthy understanding that we have to accommodate situations where it might fail. When our surgeons perform a robotic, laparoscopic surgery, they most definitely are trusting that the technology will work, and simultaneously trusting that we've got adequate fail-safe tools and procedures in the event it fails. That is, they do not perform every move in the surgery with a calculation of what they are going to do if the device doesn't behave as expected. They trust - assume - that it will. But they know that they and their team also know what to do if it today is the 1 in 100,000 or whatever when it doesn't.
Contributor
Alex does not need your sympathy, your understanding or approval.
You too will die.
"He did it himself" Your right on the money on that point. That is what makes him the safest climber on the planet.
He is relying on nothing but himself, no equipment, no help. Zero margin of error. If that doesn't help you focus your attention nothing will.
Read the OP thread heading; Sawstop Injury "I didn't think this could happen."
If you think about that for a minute You might just find a clue into why this did happen.
I would guess that Alex has a slightly different frame of mind.
Member
Judging from your response (as well as that regarding technology), you are indeed splitting hair.
Go ahead and live a life...without technology which eliminates any question about trusting or not trusting technology. In the meantime, I will continue to rely on my SS technology for an added layer of protection.
Simon
Member
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/asia/...ntl/index.html
Everyone will die, some just live longer. The choice is personal.
The only objection I have against people taking unnecessary risk is when their actions affect others negatively -- directly or indirectly. If they don't, be my guest. Lives are always full of risks and we can only try to manage the risks that we want to manage.
Simon
Member
How?
We respond to different levels of stress differently and why changing my level of awareness when a guard is used vs when it is not used is a poor approach? Please enlighten me with science to support your conclusion. If it is just your personal opinion based on your x no. of shop experience without one single incident, then I can tell you the same that I have adjusted my level of awareness without one single incident based on my x no. of shop experience.
Simon
Guest
I give up. You're far too smart for me. Good luck and I wish you the best.
Member
Precisely. Redundancy is very important in safety. Which is why the notion of not using available and convenient safety equipment and relying on human error never happening as a means of protecting yourself from being maimed is foolish.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote