>> A more serious irony is that the automatic control system has been put in place because it can do the job better than the operator, yet the operator is being asked to monitor that it is working effectively.

Automatic control is good for standard case, and the expected errors. For weird cases, for now humans are better to detect them and press the big red button.

▲ esikich 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's funny that I'm reading this while rewatching Chernobyl. Never underestimate the ability of bureaucracy to completely fuck things up.

	▲	mitthrowaway2 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The computer doesn't know we're running a test!
	▲	oliculipolicula 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Jumping into article, I assumed that the author was going to describe how he enjoys, by drawing it out as far as he can, `the process of surrendering to the machine god..` (Not the machina diabol, as it sadly turned out to be, though some BDSM zealots might disagree.. the things that bureaucracy does to us are mild in comparison? ) But.. we do monitor whether our prayers are effective .. right? Is that a smitable offense? After that disappointment, I too was "curious": was the author going to talk about "curiosity", that magic virtue that we hackers believe, lifts design into the divine (but more often than not kills the pussy)

▲ cowlevel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except experience shows they aren't. Experience shows that when humans are just pressing "ok" 99% of the time they'll press it 100% of the time and completely miss the other cases.