this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
362 points (91.7% liked)
Technology
60070 readers
3523 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's asinine. It's like saying "If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning". Brakes are pretty damn important, but very few places (in the US at least) have any mechanism for ensuring yours are in working order even periodically.
Proper risk mitigation takes into account (at minimum) the likelihood of an event occuring, the severity of the event occurring, your willingness to tolerate a failure, and the cost associated with implementing corrections.
Airlines have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for any kind of risk that could conceivably lead to a catastrophic failure, so the fact that you're allowed to have a device, despite potential safety concerns, comes from a combination of a few factors:
Right, with that extremely low tolerance would come an extremely high bar of security.
For example, you can't have lithium in the cargo, and can't have compressed gas or knives in the cabin. And what do we see? They prohibit and screen for those things (to the best of their ability).
They wouldn't let you have a knife if you promised to keep it in your pocket and not use it.
Therefore it is clear that, as the article states, airplane mode is not a significant factor for flight safety. Because if it were, they would lock up phones or have implemented a jammer or some other such adjustment
Risks exist on a continuum, and something not literally being forcibly banned doesn't mean there is zero risk in that thing, just that the risk is lower than those things that are forcibly banned or that the risks can be mitigated in other ways.
Same reason you go through a metal detector to check for weapons before getting within half mile of a plane, but were left pretty much on your honor to not bring a Samsung phone with a spicy battery on board.
You know damn well I meant intolerable risk when I implied they wouldn't allow them
I actually didn't, which was the main reason I replied.
It's fairly common to see people arguing as though a thing is either risky or not risky, without any sense of context.
This argument is also asinine. Cops aren’t in your car. If your brakes fail it isn’t their problem. Cops don’t give a fuck about your safety.
The airline crew are in your plane. If there was actually a safety risk they would absolutely do something about it because it affects them personally.
The reality is there is no safety risk which is why they don’t do anything. If safety was actually reliant on people turn on airplane mode then we’d all be fucked.