| ▲ | cinntaile a day ago |
| > If you watch an expert arborist (tree man) at work, you’ll notice that they’ve removed every single safety guard from their chainsaws. You can say that about everything that has some form of guardrails. It goes faster without them. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the right decision to remove them. People tend to change their minds after they have an accident, which to me is an indication that they can't seem to properly assess the risk and the outcome beforehand. |
|
| ▲ | pm215 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| It might alternatively be an indication that they can't properly assess the risk and the outcome afterwards.... (More likely both: we are as a species absolutely terrible about assessing low-probability risks.) |
| |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I've benefitted from modern "safe" languages. I cut my teeth on things like Machine Code, ASM, and ANSI C. I don't miss them, at all. Nowadays, I write primarily in Swift, and I absolutely love not testing for leaks, anymore. | | |
| ▲ | cinntaile a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How does this support your original position? Now you're saying you want the guardrails, I don't get the point you're trying to make. | | | |
| ▲ | bluGill a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I enjoy the non safe parts and proving with code in production for decades it works... it is sort of like code golf. however I use everytrick I tan to get memory safety when possible. |
| |
| ▲ | cinntaile a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, that is a valid point you make! | |
| ▲ | darkerside a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It can also mean they properly assessed the risk and got incredibly unlucky | | |
| ▲ | pm215 a day ago | parent [-] | | In that case they would not change their mind, though. | | |
| ▲ | ptero a day ago | parent [-] | | Not necessarily. Having a painful accident often leads people to a position of "even if I know a mishap is very unlikely I am not doing this again". | | |
| ▲ | pm215 a day ago | parent [-] | | I think that falls into the "did not correctly assess the risk beforehand" bucket (and as you say and as the post I was replying to said, this is quite common). If they had correctly assessed "this is going to be really awful if it happens such that want to rule out even an unlikely possibility of it" they ought to not want to do it the first time. | | |
| ▲ | ptero a day ago | parent [-] | | In this definition I think virtually no one assesses the risk correctly. It is a human nature to overreact (post-factum) to an unlikely event to the extent that most languages have a dedicated saying ("having burned yourself on hot milk, one now blows on water" is the non-English version I heard as a kid). No offense intended, but I also yours is not a good definition of "correctly assessing the risk". If it were followed, an extremely unlikely possibility of a horrible outcome would stop people from doing most optional things. For example, a risk of a horrible disease while on travel will lead to no travel. Personalities differ and there are daredevils and scaredy cats that differ in pre-event risk assessments, but post (unlikely and traumatic) event assessment change is pretty universal. My 2c. | | |
| ▲ | pm215 a day ago | parent [-] | | Correctly assessing the risk doesn't mean "I don't do anything that has an unlikely possibility of a horrible outcome", it can mean "I decide that I'm OK with that possibility and do it anyway, because I think the benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks". If you then do get unlucky and catch a nasty disease, that should not change your post-recovery decisions about going on holiday a second time: your risk/reward tradeoff should still be "I'm OK with the possibility of a bad outcome". Re "It is a human nature to overreact (post-factum) to an unlikely event" -- yes, absolutely agreed. This is what I mean by saying that humans as a species are terrible at assessing low-probability risks. That most people change their view just means that most people both underestimate the likelihood of low probability events that haven't happened to anybody they know, and overestimate the likelihood of low probability events that have happened to somebody they know. | | |
| ▲ | ptero a day ago | parent [-] | | Agreed on both the definition of the optimal assessment and on the fact that the humans are bad at it. I actually think this (humans being bad at it) is good for the civilization as it helps people try things they would be too scared to do if they properly assessed all the potential outcomes with their probabilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gwd a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A couple of years ago we bought a 50-year-old-house and gutted it. We had professionals do the stuff that required expertise or a lot of time / skills (electricians, plumbers, plasterers, etc), and did most other things ourselves. At some point I'd come in to do something within my remit while the electricians were here. I'd put in earplugs to do some masonry drilling, because I've only got one set of ears and I'd like to be able to hear things when I'm 80. One of the electrician's assistants, probably in his late 20's commented on it, something like, "Got your ear condoms on, huh?" I'm at a stage in my life where I don't really care about that sort of thing, so just blew it off. A few months later, that same guy came in to do the final wiring on something. He'd lost the end of his thumb -- had an accident with some tool or other and cut it off. It's hard for me not to think that his attitude toward earplugs and his accident were related. Nobody deserves to be maimed for life, but we live in a universe which can be pretty unforgiving. |
| |
| ▲ | Mtinie a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Quite possibly. In my experience, the people who make unsolicited comments about others’ risk mitigations have incorrectly learned that safety precautions indicate weakness or inexperience, when experience teaches the opposite. Seasoned professionals know that tools and environments don’t care about your skill level. A tool will injure anyone who doesn’t respect its inherent dangers. The mockery typically comes from those who’ve either been lucky so far or selectively absorbed workplace cultures that prioritize appearing tough over staying whole. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | On the other hand, there's the people who make a big song and dance ritual over putting their eye and ear pro on just to impact off one bolt that'll be maybe a couple clacks of the hammer. It's not realistic to do that for every single transient noise or tap on something, the safety is just performative at that point. I have no problem letting those people and behaviors be ridiculed. | | |
| ▲ | Mtinie a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If I'm not directly impacted by someones' use of PPE, then that's their business even if I think it is an overreaction or performative. I've injured myself while doing "simple" operations before when a bolt or screw unexpectedly failed, so it may not be as performative as it appears. On the other hand, if I'm working with someone in a professional capacity and they are delaying our work because they are acting in an anxious manner about safety, then I'll take time to talk through why I see their actions as counter-productive and then we can discuss how to be safe and efficient. | |
| ▲ | relaxing a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | “It was only a couple clacks of the hammer” will be a cold comfort if one of those clacks is the one that sends a fragment of metal into your eye. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yup. One of my arborist friends was a bit reckless (very, very good, but I thought he took unnecessary risks). Whenever he would see me, he’d hold up his left hand, to show he still had all his fingers, because I’d always tell him he’d lose one. Not sure which of us was in the wrong. He made very good money. I remember some electricians, working on our lighting system, at work. They worked on live (320 Volts) fixtures. Never bothered to kill the circuit breaker. I’ve found that pro tools tend to look pretty scruffy, while amateur tools tend to look shiny. | | |
| ▲ | relaxing a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 320V circuit eh? | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-] | | That’s what I was told. Apparently, our building had a certain kind of wiring. I was also told it was pretty common. Might not be exactly 320, but it was over 300 (not 240). I'm told it's common in many industrial/office buildings. | | |
| ▲ | gavinheavyside 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably 230v three phase, 230v RMS would be around 330v peak | | |
| ▲ | relaxing 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably 230 and OP is not qualified to be speaking about it. | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > OP is not qualified to be speaking about it I know that was supposed to be an insult, but it's actually true. I don't mind at all. Not my wheelhouse. I'm just repeating what the electrician told me, verbally, about twenty years ago. I wasn't actually that interested, at the time, so it's expected that my memory of it is terrible. There's all sorts of stuff I ain't qualified to write about, and I'm not embarrassed in the least, to say so. That's one of the reasons I hang out here. I suspect that it was 277 volts. I'm pretty sure that's a thing. I'm sorta sure that he said 300-something, but, as was noted above, he may have been just using the most impressive number he could find, or he was talking about the tolerances of the switches. I'll bet that it came up, because we were discussing the budget he was charging my department, and I probably had a question about the stuff he was ordering. Otherwise, I don't see why it would have interested me. I've learned to leave contractors alone, while they work. The reason that I knew they were working on live wires, was because the lights turned on, as I was walking past, and there was a slight spark in the box he was tweaking. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | closewith a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | To paraphrase your comment, you're easily impressed by reckless behaviour and mistake it for expertise. | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-] | | Listen, you didn't like the LARP comment, and you're right. I apologize. Let's just bury the hatchet, eh? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jiggawatts a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've repeatedly heard the anecdote (to the point that I suspect it's now data) that inexperienced users of chainsaws are terrified of them, experienced users are comfortable with them, and very experienced users are even more terrified of them. |
| |
| ▲ | the_af a day ago | parent [-] | | I've heard this of driving: that very novice drivers are terrified and extra careful, as you gain confidence you lose your fear and make dangerous mistakes, and when you're truly experienced the rate of accidents decreases again. Don't know if it's true. I can say I know cases of extremely good people committing very dangerous mistakes due to disabling safety checks, thinking they don't apply to them... | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | I throw these sort of quips the internet love into the same mental bucket (the trash can, tbh) as tabloid health advice. Even if the general rule is right it likely comes with caveats that make it inferior to applying situation specific information or qualifiers that make it little better than chance or a coin toss. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Opinions like yours are wildly popular on the white collar internet because they "feel good" to people who are far removed from actual danger and productivity. But if you go to a part of the internet where many are self employed such naïve and un-nuanced opinions will be laughed at and ridiculed because they completely ignore the benefit side of the equation. We all only get so much time on this earth and on some level quality and quantity are fungible, if inefficiently and imprecisely with some element of chance. How much is a life worth? What's a finger worth? What's a crippling accident worth? And so on and so on. Once you define these terms numbers can be crunched and it can be determined whether you are right or wrong in any given case, and I assure you, there will be cases where your attitude computes so poorly it is farcical. Is the retired carpenter with 10 fingers really better off than the one with 7? Sure the guy with 7 wished he'd not made that foolish mistake but the lifetime productivity gains of habitually moving fast likely show in his quality of life. More complex benefit calculations simply make the problem more complex, but they do not change the fundamental nature of the tradeoff. Depending on what an injury is worth, the compensation structure, etc, etc, it may very well be the right decision to disable all the safeties on everything and work fast for 10yr before losing a finger and moving on to something else because the faster man can command the higher labor rate, etc, etc. Likewise, often times it's more valuable to write crap software in a week that solves a transient need for a year rather than spending 7mo spec'ing out and developing the arc of the goddamn covenant. Yeah it might shit all over your production database but if you're smart about the details it won't be much more likely to do that than "good" software and you can be on to the next value producing task. |
| |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately, this is pretty much exactly the view of many pros. Time is money, and they will shave off things that may cost time (sometimes, that's Quality). I mentioned that they removed the safety guards, but I never said it was good. Myself, I would not do that. I enjoy having some of the safety features that modern languages offer. I can work very quickly, indeed. I probably work faster (and safer) than I ever did, because of this. A big danger of seasoned pros, is that they get casual with extremely dangerous things, and remove the safety stops, in order to accelerate their workflow. One day, they are too casual, and you end up with a smoking pair of shoes on the floor. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | But at the end of the day it's all just a N-way tradeoff between body parts/health outcomes, time and money, and god knows whatever other factors you seek to define. Nobody blinks an eye when you say you're making a financial gamble and if it pays off you'll be able to retire young enough to enjoy it. But everyone loses their minds if you're putting up your health instead of dollars, as if those aren't fungible. Take for example (and this is a literal example from my friend group, not hypothetical) a man in the metal fabrication business. On day one he can either buy the "cheap and unsafe" old flywheel press brake or he can take out a loan for the modern hydraulic equivalent that is much safer, but also 3-5x slower depending on what you're using it for. That's a lot of money in his pocket over time. He never lost a finger in 30yr and ultimately sold out. Now, his lungs aren't great. But if he'd been slaving away at a hydraulic press all those years he'd never have had to either take a much smaller cash out or wait so long that he couldn't enjoy the retirement. Now, obviously there's not a direct tradeoff between disabling guards or "unsafe choices" and productivity, and there's not a direct tradeoff between "safe choices" and health outcomes. And you can always make good or bade tradeoffs. What's a good tradeoff for the self employed 40yo isn't necessarily smart for the wage laborer at 20, or the business owner who is responsible for the wage laborers. And at the end of the day it's all safety choices to some extend, but those safety choices are also time and money choices. Do you chock your forklift every time or do you trust the parking brake? It's really easy to sit there and say chock it every time but the nickels and dimes add up, but on the flip side of that coin the health and safety risk exposure adds up too[1]. These tradeoffs are all inter-related and the people saying to "do all the safety all the time" are just as stupid as the people saying you can run a cutting torch naked. [1] if anyone wants to make a low effort quip about the step stool and utility knife being the most dangerous tools in the shop now's your chance. | | |
| ▲ | moron4hire 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not what the word "fungible" means. Not at all. Dollars are fungible. You can replace any $1 bill with any other and it doesn't matter. Calling trading X for Y where calculations of comparable value have to occur is exactly the opposite of fungible. | |
| ▲ | relaxing a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re over complicating things because you have no idea what you’re talking about. At every worksite, the equation is: how much will the company lose in lost productivity and workman’s comp if someone is injured. And the equation goes in favor of safety every time. |
|
|
|