This is a fundamental organizational and societal problem. An engineer would look at the situation and think "what is the best way to get the failure rate below a tolerable limit?" But a lawyer looks at the situation and thinks "how do I minimize liability and bad PR?" and a bureaucrat thinks "how can I be sure the blame doesn't land on me when something goes wrong?" And the answer to both of those questions is to throw an alarm on absolutely everything. So if there is a problem they can always say "our system detected the anomaly in advance and threw an alarm." Overall the system will be less safe and more expensive, but the lawyer's and bureaucrat's problems are solved. Our society is run by lawyers and bureaucrats, so their approach will win out over the engineer's. (And China's society is run by engineers, so it will win out over ours.)

Up to a certain point society is run by actuaries. Finding someone at your insurance company who both understands the problem with excess errors and appreciates how easily enumerable they are would be an interesting "whistleblowing" target.

Courts do accept alarm fatigue and if there is an injury/death and there were many alarms you can bet that whatever lawyers' side benefits will bring in experts to explain the issue.

if there are a lot of issues the lawyers will also ask why they were not corrected first: using that to establish a pattern of bad maintenance.

Is it though? Engineer can optimize on different manifold. Company can succeed/fail for different reasons. Getting destroyed for legal suit because didn’t place alarm is small peace when you did better engineering.

After all, read any post-mortem comments on HN. Many of those people can be hired as expert if you like. They will say “I would have put an alert on it and had testing”. You will lose the case.

“Oh but we are trying to keep error rate low”. Yes, but now your company is dead when high error rate company is alive.

In revealed preferences, most engineers prefer vendors who have CYA. This is obvious from online comments. This is not because they are engineer. It’s because most people want to believe that event is freak accident.

Building system for error budget is not actually easy. Even for engineer who say they want it. Because when error happens, they immediately say it should not have happened. Counterfactual other errors blocked, and business existing are not considered. Every engineer is genius in hindsight. Every person is genius in hindsight.

Why these genius never make failure proof company? They do not. Who would not pay same price for 100% reliable tech?

> This is a fundamental organizational and societal problem

Absolutely, and we'd collectively be better served if we had tools to deal with it.

I think of it as "incentive ecology" -- as noted, everybody has their own incentives which shapes their behavior, which causes downstream issues that begin the process anew.

Obviously there's no simple one-shot solution to this, but what if we had ways to simplify and model this "web of responsibility" (some sort of game theory exposed as an easily consumed presentation, with computed outcomes that show the cost/ROI/risk/reward) that could be shared by all stakeholders?

Obscurity and deniability are the weapons wielded in most of these scenarios, so what if we could render them obsolete?

Sure, those in power would not want to yield their advantages, but the overall outcomes should reward everybody by minimizing risks and maximizing rewards for the enterprise and everybody wins.

Yes, I'm looking at it as a an engineer and a dreamer, but I think if such a tool existed that was open source and easily accessible that this work could be done by rogue participants that could put it out there so it's undeniable.

The first step in problem solving is to look in the mirror. It's not surprising that in an engineering community, the instinct is to blame outsiders - lawyers, bureaucrats, managers, finance, etc. - because those priorities are more likely to conflict with engineering, because it is harder to understand such different perspectives, and because it is easier to believe caricatures of people we don't know personally.

Those people have valuable input on issues the engineer may not understand and have little experience with. And engineers are just as likely to take the easy way out, like the caricature in the parent comment:

For example, for the manufacturer's engineering team it's much easier, faster and cheaper to slap an alarm on everything than to learn attention management and to think through and create an attention management system that is effective and reliable (and it had better be reliable - imagine if it omits the wrong alarms!). I think anyone with experience can imagine the decision to not delay the project and increase costs for that involved subproject - one that involves every component team, which is a priority for almost none of them, and which many engineers, such as the mechanical engineer working on the robotic arm, won't even understand the need for.

> And China's society is run by engineers, so it will win out over ours.

History has not been kind to engineers who do non-engineering, such as US President Herbert Hoover who built dams and but also had significant responsibility for the Great Depression. It's not that engineers can't acquire other skills and do well in those fields, but that other skills are needed - they aren't engineering. Those who accept as truth their natural egocentric bias and their professional community's bias toward engineering are unlikely to learn those skills.