1492
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
1492 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
55919 readers
2547 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Guy who said "If I die, it is not suicide" dies of suicide right before important court date, and perfectly healthy and active person suddenly succumbs to rare antibiotics-resistant infection.
They just happened to work at the same company and die right before they could testify on the same thing.
This not being foul play is less likely than a global conspiracy.
Tbf the evidence for the second person is not strong - that stuff does legit happen.
But the first guy? Damn! That's enough right there.
Well isn't there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?
I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way. The first one was ruled as maybe just being some very very freak thing to happen, but it happening twice made it entirely implausible to be without systematic cause.
And well now it is happening twice in a few years with Boeing that weird things happen twice in a row with little time in between in relation to critical security flaws.
It sounds like neither of us know the answer to that, so I choose not to comment on that matter.
But how does that apply? One guy was a "suicide", the other was bacteria - you just said it yourself, the metric only works if they crash "in the exact same way", therefore by your own words, this seems to not apply?
There is a natural human bias to want to "know" things. Sometimes we even make shit up out of desperation to fill that void, but the more honest way (but HARD to do, emotionally, as in it seriously goes against the grain of our pattern-finding brain's natural instinctual algorithms) is to simply say "I do not know the answer here". Please don't misunderstand me as saying that it is likely that the second guy was not killed - that would be 100% tangential to what I am trying to convey!
Rather, I am saying that the first guy looks to have been Epstein-ed, but we don't know enough yet about the second guy. Could you imagine someone sent to kill him, and having a whole plan in place so that he wouldn't even make it home but rather be taken care of in the car on the way there, but then he dies in his hospital bed first -> do you still get paid!?:-P Asking the important questions here!!:-D
But again, what happened to the first guy is already enough to know that some shady shit is going on. And yeah, that should make us think twice about the second guy... but having done so, I think that we just don't know enough there to make a firm determination like we could for the first guy, without additional evidence. Which does not absolve Boeing one iota for being so shitty for the last few years.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
years
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I agree, that we cannot rule either death to be an assassination by itself. But their distinct occurrence in this context, e.g. that they prevent whistleblowers from testifying warrants an in depth investigation into both of them. In particular given the circumstances it is sketchy if Police or other officials are eager to close the case and rule it as non assassinations, without actually analyzing what was going on.
I don't know the relevant laws there - but I am certain that an autopsy would have been done? Beyond that, what more could be done? If that means a more expensive autopsy, then yeah they should do that - even Boeing might agree on that point, to help absolve them, even if they did somehow give the bacteria to the guy, but like if they were confident that it could not be traced to them in that manner.
Speaking of, even if they were guilty in this second case, that's a very different thing than someone being able to prove it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational bedrock principle in the USA, and we cannot simply throw that away without losing something precious.
And with them being military contractors, they probably have classified status to where local police can't just go subpoenaing their records willy nilly. I could be wrong though. Then again, if they are used to dealing with the likes of e.g. literal Russian spies, then surely they would be smart enough to not leave a paper trail on something like this to begin with?
But the first guy should already be enough to start an investigation. The second guy... I dunno what that one means, maybe yes but also might not be.
There can be far more done than just an autopsy in the second case. Is there a register who has entered and left the building? Is there camera footage showing anyone accessing the room that had no business being there? Is there anything unusual in the nurses schedules? Were all procedures followed according to the rules, especially sanitary rules?
These are all things that should be investigated. If they show no signs of irregularities then the case can be closed. If there is irregularities, then these need to be investigated further, and then the question of motive comes into play, where there is one party with a very strong motive to silence the guy.
I presumed all of that would already be done. Then again, perhaps not. Then again, a giant military industrial contractor may have ways around such anyway, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't look, though either way I would expect the situation to at least superficially look innocent.
You could write a letter, maybe get a petition signed to back it up, to the hospital and ask that their internal security do such? Or the police in that local area.
Again, a dozen whistleblowers now, and 2 died fairly quickly after coming out.
*after agreeing to testify
Maybe Boeing will learn from their mistakes and go for using their relatives as leverage or tarnishing their reputation by framing them with treason instead.
I don’t know if that’s a rule of thumb or not, but it certainly makes sense.
First, the world of reliability runs on data and math. Lots of statistics, of course.
And second, aircraft are over-engineered for safety margins on top of safety margins. The test data might say you need a part that’s X thickness of aluminum in order to be 99% sure to never fail in the field. So let’s just make it 3X thickness to be safe!
So from that standpoint, back to back failures should pretty much always draw a bunch of attention in this industry.
I did do the math on it and the second guy only had a 1 in 3630 chance of dying of natural causes in that time window.
sadfsdfasfasf
https://lemmy.world/comment/9809397
I admit I am not a stats guy. Please tell me what I did wrong in my math. Totally open to being corrected here.
sadfsdfasfasf
There's 2 kinds of evidence.
The guy saying he won't kill himself requires inferring that he's being truthful when he said it and that he didn't change his mind. It's not non-evidence, it does point to suicide being less likely. But it's far from conclusive. If there's no sign of entering the vehicle or that a struggle occurred, then I'd argue that far outweighs his prior statement.
That's also a common misunderstanding, at least regarding the first (I'm not as familiar with the second). I'm a bit unclear on the details of the deposition - which side wanted it and was asking the questions, etc. (detailed here) but whatever the case, it was Boeing that demanded he come back for one more day. So if Boeing wanted him to not testify that day, they'd just send him home as originally planned. The only reason they'd do it then was to silence him generally...but doing it in a way that draws so much suspicion to them seems like an implausibly bad decision. Then again, it is Boeing. (Note that this is also circumstantial evidence, and requires assuming that Boeing isn't so dumb as to kill a witness in the middle of their own deposition, which may not be warranted).
Edit: corrected my own misunderstanding of deposition
Its also inferring his friend is being truthful when he said that's what the guy said.
That guy also had a history of mental issues and anxiety. He was away from home experiencing high stress environments, like a court room, and he was looking at another court appearance that day.
It doesn't take a genius to see that maybe, just maybe, this is a coincidence instead of murder. He had already given the bulk of his testimony, so I really don't see the motive here.
Can I have source plz
I'm not doubting you it's just that's so comedic I need to see it for myself
Here you go.
https://abcnews4.com/news/local/if-anything-happens-its-not-suicide-boeing-whistleblowers-prediction-before-death-south-carolina-abc-news-4-2024