Anticipating a sensible and legitimate comment - yes, the victims of the Boeing 737MAX are just as dead as those of Pinochet and Grenfell, and were also real human beings with relatives and loved ones. All I can say is that it didn't seem as visceral to me as Chile and Grenfell, and I tried to keep it tasteful in the book.
If you wanted to encapsulate it as a rule, I guess the way would be "all regulations must be set as if all the other regulations are being obeyed at their *worst case*"
In fact, this would probably force some of the worst cases to be scaled right back (e.g. the cladding wouldn't have passed because all the other certifications wouldn't have wanted to have to be a lot more rigorous), and in situations where they weren't barrel-scraping, you'd get a bit of tolerance for the unexpected.
Of course, then you get grumbling about stuff being over-engineered, not to mention that "worst-case" is not always trivial to calculate.
When we mistake a random process for an adversarial one, we tend to form conspiracy theories. What about when we mistake an adversarial process for a random one? What is that? A complacency theory?
I've had conversations with people who complain about the local building department (or the health department) being too strict and inflexible, and the best defense I have is, "this is their one chance to set standards. Once they complete the permit/inspection and given approval then they're out of the picture. "
Once upon a time I had a discussion with a civil engineer who did building structural design. The topic was design for earthquakes. We live in California you know. He said that the size of the construction loan drove all engineering considerations. He would try to add a tweek, a small increase, in resistance and be fiercely resisted by the building owner.
Somewhat relatedly, when I screw something up (which happens often) and my backup system works as intended, I always regard this as unmerited good luck rather than the natural course of things. That way, when the backup system fails (which, as you say, happens rarely but inevitably), I don't have to rage against the injustice of the universe.
Anticipating a sensible and legitimate comment - yes, the victims of the Boeing 737MAX are just as dead as those of Pinochet and Grenfell, and were also real human beings with relatives and loved ones. All I can say is that it didn't seem as visceral to me as Chile and Grenfell, and I tried to keep it tasteful in the book.
If you wanted to encapsulate it as a rule, I guess the way would be "all regulations must be set as if all the other regulations are being obeyed at their *worst case*"
In fact, this would probably force some of the worst cases to be scaled right back (e.g. the cladding wouldn't have passed because all the other certifications wouldn't have wanted to have to be a lot more rigorous), and in situations where they weren't barrel-scraping, you'd get a bit of tolerance for the unexpected.
Of course, then you get grumbling about stuff being over-engineered, not to mention that "worst-case" is not always trivial to calculate.
When we mistake a random process for an adversarial one, we tend to form conspiracy theories. What about when we mistake an adversarial process for a random one? What is that? A complacency theory?
I've had conversations with people who complain about the local building department (or the health department) being too strict and inflexible, and the best defense I have is, "this is their one chance to set standards. Once they complete the permit/inspection and given approval then they're out of the picture. "
Once upon a time I had a discussion with a civil engineer who did building structural design. The topic was design for earthquakes. We live in California you know. He said that the size of the construction loan drove all engineering considerations. He would try to add a tweek, a small increase, in resistance and be fiercely resisted by the building owner.
Somewhat relatedly, when I screw something up (which happens often) and my backup system works as intended, I always regard this as unmerited good luck rather than the natural course of things. That way, when the backup system fails (which, as you say, happens rarely but inevitably), I don't have to rage against the injustice of the universe.