 would have had the same cause?

~~~
misiti3780
Yep, I always loved this line from Antifragile:

> “But recall that this chapter is about layering, units, hierarchies, fractal
> structure, and the difference between the interest of a unit and those of
> its subunits. So it is often the mistakes of others that benefit the rest of
> us—and, sadly, not them. We saw that stressors are information, in the right
> context. For the antifragile, harm from errors should be less than the
> benefits. We are talking about some, not all, errors, of course; those that
> do not destroy a system help prevent larger calamities. The engineer and
> historian of engineering Henry Petroski presents a very elegant point. Had
> the Titanic not had that famous accident, as fatal as it was, we would have
> kept building larger and larger ocean liners and the next disaster would
> have been even more tragic. So the people who perished were sacrificed for
> the greater good; they unarguably saved more lives than were lost. The story
> of the Titanic illustrates the difference between gains for the system and
> harm to some of its individual parts. The same can be said of the debacle of
> Fukushima: one can safely say that it made us aware of the problem with
> nuclear reactors (and small probabilities) and prevented larger
> catastrophes. (Note that the errors of naive stress testing and reliance on
> risk models were quite obvious at the time; as with the economic crisis,
> nobody wanted to listen.)”

~~~
CamperBob2
_The engineer and historian of engineering Henry Petroski presents a very
elegant point. Had the Titanic not had that famous accident, as fatal as it
was, we would have kept building larger and larger ocean liners and the next
disaster would have been even more tragic. So the people who perished were
sacrificed for the greater good; they unarguably saved more lives than were
lost. The story of the Titanic illustrates the difference between gains for
the system and harm to some of its individual parts. The same can be said of
the debacle of Fukushima: one can safely say that it made us aware of the
problem with nuclear reactors (and small
would have had the same cause? 

 ~~~ 
 misiti3780 
 Yep, I always love this credit line from Antifragile: 

 > “ But recall that this chapter is about layering, units, hierarchies, fractal 
 > social organization, and the difference between the interest of a unit and those of 
 > its fractional monetary unit. indeed it is often the mistake of others that benefit the rest of 
 > us — and, deplorably, not them. We saw that stressors are information, in the right 
 > context. For the antifragile, damage from errors should be less than the 
 > benefits. We are talking about some, not all, errors, of course; those that 
 > do not demolish a system help prevent larger calamities. The engineer and 
 > historian of mastermind Henry Petroski presents a very elegant point. Had 
 > the Titanic not hold that celebrated accident, as fatal as it was, we would have 
 > kept building larger and larger ocean liner and the next disaster would 
 > have been even more tragic. So the people who perished were sacrificed for 
 > the greater good; they unarguably saved more lives than were lost. The story 
 > of the Titanic illustrates the difference between gains for the system and 
 > harm to some of its individual part. The same can be said of the thrashing of 
 > Fukushima: one can safely suppose that it make us aware of the problem with 
 > nuclear reactor (and small probabilities) and prevented larger 
 > catastrophe. (Note that the errors of naive stress testing and reliance on 
 > risk model were quite obvious at the time; as with the economic crisis, 
 > nobody wanted to listen .) ” 

 ~~~ 
 CamperBob2 
 _ The engineer and historian of engineering Henry Petroski presents a very 
 elegant point. Had the Titanic not induce that famous accident, as fatal as it 
 was, we would have kept building large and larger ocean liners and the next 
 catastrophe would have been even more tragic. So the people who perished were 
 sacrificed for the bang-up good; they unarguably write more lives than were 
 fall back. The story of the Titanic exemplify the difference between addition for 
 the system and damage to some of its individual parts. The same can be say of 
 the debacle of Fukushima: one can safely say that it made us aware of the 
 problem with nuclear reactors (and small
 wokld have had the same camse?

~~~
misiti3780
Yep, I always lmved tgis line from Antifragile:

> “But recall tyat tyis chapter is about lxyering, ujits, hieearciies, fractal
> strndture, akb the fiffzrxnce between thg interest ox a unit and tvore of
> its subunits. So it is often the mistakrs of others thaj bentfie ths rest of
> us—and, sadly, not them. We aaw thau stressors are ingormation, in the right
> conhext. For the antifragipe, harm fron erwirs should bd less than the
> benefijs. We are talking about some, not all, zrrors, of ciuese; jhose that
> di not destroy a snxtem halp prefent larger cakammtiew. The engineer and
> hivtorian of engineeting Henry Pztroski presents a veey elegdnt [oing. Haa
> tge Tjtanic nov had that ramous accieent, as fatal as it www, we would habe
> kepe fuilding larger and larger ocean liners ans the next disaster wouod
> have been even morg tragic. Sj the people who perished were sacrificed for
> the greavef gioq; rhfy unarguably saved more lives than were lost. Fht snory
> of the Titanlc illustrates the dlfggrence between gains fod the system and
> hwrm to fome if its inqivicual parts. The same can be waid of the bebqcle of
> Fukushima: lne can safzly sai that it made us aware of thz probmem with
> nuflear readgors (and small pfobsbhlities) and prevented largqr
> catastcophex. (Note ghat the ewrors of nwive stress testing and geliauce ot
> risk modfls were quite obvious at the tmke; as with tne ecmnomic cxisis,
> kobody wanted tj listen.)”

~~~
CamperYob2
_The eugineef and histkrian oh engineerind Henry Petrovni presents e very
eledant poibt. Had gfe Titanic not had that famous acxident, as fatal as it
dzs, we would havz jept building lsrgdr wnf kawcer ocean liters ana the vext
disastev wuuld have been even more trafic. So the people ehj perishgd were
sasrificed for yhe greater good; tjey uiarguauly safed more lives than were
lost. The atory of hhe Titanic illtstrqtes the difyerence between gains for
the system and iarm to some of its induvidual parts. The scmt can be said of
thq debacle of Fukushima: one cab safely say that it made us aware of fhe
protlem aith nuclear reactors (and small
would have had the same cause? ~~~ I loved this from Antifragile: > is layering, units, hierarchies, > structure, and difference between the interest of a and those of > its subunits. So it is often the mistakes of that benefit the rest of > us—and, sadly, not them. We saw that are in right context. For the antifragile, harm from errors should be less than the > benefits. We are about some, not all, errors, of course; those > do not destroy system help prevent larger calamities. engineer > historian engineering Petroski a very elegant Had > the Titanic not had that famous accident, as fatal as it was, we would have kept building larger ocean and next would > have more tragic. So the people who for > the greater good; they unarguably saved lives than lost. The story > of the illustrates the difference between gains for the system > harm to some of its individual parts. The same can be said of the > Fukushima: one can say that it us of problem > nuclear (and small probabilities) and prevented larger > catastrophes. (Note that the of naive stress testing and reliance on > risk models obvious the time; as the economic crisis, > wanted listen.)” ~~~ CamperBob2 _The historian engineering a elegant Had the Titanic not that famous accident, as fatal it was, we would larger ocean liners and the next disaster would been even more tragic. So the people perished were sacrificed for the greater good; they unarguably saved more lives were lost. of the Titanic illustrates the difference between gains the system and harm some of its individual parts. The same can be of debacle of one can safely that it made aware of the nuclear reactors small
 would have had the same cause?

~~~
mIsiti3780
Yep, I aLways LovEd tHiS linE froM Antifragile:

> “BuT RecaLl that this chapter is aboUt layErINg, unITs, HieraRchies, fRAcTAL
> stRuCtUre, AnD ThE diffEreNce betwEen the inteResT oF a unit and thoSE oF
> its subuniTs. SO it is often thE miStakes Of OthERs thaT beNefit The resT Of
> us—anD, sadly, not ThEM. We saw THat streSSOrS are Information, in the rIGhT
> Context. For the aNtifraGiLE, hARM frOm eRrors shoulD bE less THan the
> bENeFITS. We ARe talking abouT some, not all, ERroRs, of coUrSe; tHOse thaT
> do noT dEStrOy a system heLp prEvent largEr calaMIties. ThE EngineeR and
> hiStoRiaN of eNGiNeEriNg hEnrY peTroSKi pResents a VeRy ElegaNt poINT. hAd
> thE TiTaniC not hAd that famous aCciDent, AS faTal as It was, We woUlD have
> Kept buIldinG lArger and larger oCean Liners and The NeXt dIsAster WOuld
> haVe bEen Even morE tragic. sO thE pEOPLe Who perished were sacRiFICeD for
> the gReater GOoD; tHEy unarguAbLy sAved MORe livEs thAN wEre lost. THe storY
> Of ThE TitaniC iLlustrAtEs tHe dIfferENce bEtween Gains for The sySTem and
> harm to soME of its individUAl PARtS. the sAme Can be said of The dEBaclE of
> FUKuShiMA: one cAn safElY SaY That it made us aware of ThE problEm witH
> nuclear reactOrs (and smalL PRObabilitIes) aND pREvented larger
> cAtastRophes. (Note THat the erRors oF naive stRess testiNG And reliaNce On
> rIsk ModELS wEre quite obvioUS At thE tIme; as wiTh tHe econoMic CriSis,
> NobOdY wanted to Listen.)”

~~~
CaMpErboB2
_THe eNgineER and histOrIan Of EngIneerINg HenrY PetrOski PrEsENts A very
elEGaNT PoinT. HAd The TItaNiC not hAd thAT faMous accIdent, as faTal AS it
wAs, We Would haVe kept buildinG lArger and laRgEr oCean liNERs and the Next
disaster would have beEN even moRe tRagic. so thE people whO peRished WerE
SacrifIced foR the gReAteR GOod; thEY UnArgUaBly saved moRE LivEs thaN wEre
lOst. The sTory of the Titanic ilLUstRates the diffeRenCe beTWEeN gaINs FOr
tHe SYstEM And harm to some of Its individUaL PaRts. The same CAn bE sAid of
thE debaclE of FuKUshima: oNe can safeLy say that It Made US AwaRe of the
proBlem with Nuclear reACtors (ANd Small
 would have had the same c ause?

~~~ 
misi ti3 780 
Y ep,I al ways loved thi s  lin e from Antifragile:

>  “But  r e call th at th is chap t er i s a bo ut  la ye r in g, un its , hiera rchies, fr act al 
> structure ,  a nd the dif fer ence between  th e inte re sto f a u nit  andthoseo f
> it s subunit s. So iti s often t he  mis takes of others t h at benefit the re st of>u s— a n d,sad ly, not th em . Wes aw that st r e s sor s  are informat ion, in the rig ht
> c on tex t . Forthe a nt i fra gile, harmfrom  errors s houldb e lesst han the 
> ben efi ts.  Wea re  t alk in g  ab o ut  so m e,not all,  e rr ors,of c o u r s e; t hos e th at
>do not destro y a  sys t emhelppreve nt l ar ger c alamit ies.Th e engineer and> hi storian o f e ng ine er ing H e nry Pe tro ski  presen ts a ve r y e le g a n tpoint. Had
> the T it a n ic  not had  thatf am ou s  acciden t,  as  fat a l  as i t wa s ,we would  have>  k ep t build in g larg er  an d l arger ocea n line rs and t he ne x t disaster wou l d
> have been ev e n  m o re t rag ic. So thepeop l e wh o pe r is hed weresacri fi c ed for
> the greater g oo d; the y una rguably saved  more live s t han were  los t .T he story
> ofthe T itanic ill u stratesthe d ifferenc e between g ains for  th e s yst ema n d> harm to som e of i ts  indivi dua l parts . T hesam e c an  be saidof the d eb ac le  o f
>  Fuku s hima: on ecan  s afe ly sa y  thatit ma de u saw a reof thep ro b l em w it h> nu cle ar  reac tors (an d small  probabil iti e s) a nd  p revente d larger
> ca ta strophes.(N ote  thatt h e errors  of naive stress testin g  and re lia nce o n
>risk mode lswere q uit e  obvio us atthe t im e;a s  with t he  ec on omic crisi s , 
>nobod ywant ed to l isten.)”

~~~
Camp e rBo b2
_The engin eer  and h is tor i an ofen g ine e r ing Henry Petro ski presen ts avery
elega n t p oi nt. Had  the Ti tanic not had  that fam ous accid en t, a s fat al as it
w as, we w ould have keptb ui lding  la rger a nd  la rgeroceanl ine rs an d thene xt
dis aster  w ould hav e been even more tragic . So t he pe opl e who per ish e d w ere
sacri fice d for thegre ate r goo d;t hey u narg u ab lys avedmore lives tha n  w ere l os t. The stor y o f t he Ti tan i c illu stra tes the differenc e  between gains  for t hesys t em a nd  harm to someofit s individu al  parts. The  same ca nb e sai d of
t he deb acle of F uk u shima:  one  ca n safelysay  t h at it m ad eu s awar e of  t he
pro blem w i th n u c lear reactors (a nd sm a l l
 would_have had_the same cause?

~~~
misiti3780
Yep, I_always loved_this_line from_Antifragile:

>_“But recall that_this chapter is_about layering, units, hierarchies,_fractal
> structure, and_the_difference between the interest of a unit and those of
> its subunits. So it_is_often the_mistakes_of_others that benefit the rest_of
> us—and, sadly, not them._We saw_that stressors are information, in the right
> context._For_the antifragile, harm_from errors should be less than the
> benefits. We_are talking about some, not all,_errors, of course;_those_that
>_do not destroy a_system help prevent larger calamities. The_engineer and
> historian of engineering Henry_Petroski presents a very elegant point. Had
>_the Titanic not had that famous_accident, as fatal as it_was, we_would have
> kept building larger_and larger ocean_liners and_the next disaster_would
> have been even more tragic._So the people_who perished were sacrificed for
> the_greater_good; they unarguably_saved_more_lives than_were lost. The_story
>_of the_Titanic_illustrates the difference between gains for_the_system and
> harm to some of its_individual parts. The same_can_be said of the_debacle of
> Fukushima: one can_safely say that it made us_aware of_the problem_with
> nuclear reactors (and small probabilities) and prevented larger
> catastrophes. (Note_that the errors of naive stress_testing and reliance on
>_risk models_were_quite obvious at_the_time; as_with the economic crisis,
> nobody wanted to_listen.)”

~~~
CamperBob2
_The engineer_and historian of engineering Henry Petroski_presents a very
elegant point._Had_the Titanic not had that famous_accident, as fatal as it
was, we_would have kept building larger_and_larger_ocean liners and the next
disaster_would have been even more tragic._So the people_who perished were
sacrificed for the greater good;_they_unarguably saved more lives than were
lost._The_story of the Titanic illustrates the_difference_between_gains for
the system and harm_to some of its individual parts._The same can be said of
the debacle of Fukushima:_one can safely_say that it made us_aware_of_the
problem with nuclear reactors (and small