
Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters - jfaat
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795123158/boeing-employees-mocked-faa-in-internal-messages-before-737-max-disasters
======
thaumasiotes
Geez.

> "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't,"
> says one employee to another, who responds, "No."

> Peter DeFazio, [D-Oregon], called newly released documents "incredibly
> damning"

That's hard to argue with. You'd like to think this kind of thing would...
leak. Who said conspiracies involving hundreds of people are impossible?

~~~
seibelj
How many people in the government knew about the NSA spying on citizens before
Snowden finally spilled the info? That was a _massive_ effort involving many
(thousands?) of people. Then when Snowden reveals it, his life is destroyed
and he’s forced to live in exile. Sends a _very strong_ warning to any other
potential do-gooders considering telling the truth.

~~~
rsynnott
Eh. In that case, there _had_ been prior leaks, for years; they were just much
less complete and taken less seriously. As far as I know, there was never a
pre-production leak that Boeing employees thought the MAX was unsafe.

~~~
DanBC
Yes.

For example, this report from the EU parliament from 2001:
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP/...](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN)

This details a lot of what we knew about ECHELON from the mid 1990s to 2002:
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS_STUDY_538877_Affair...](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS_STUDY_538877_AffaireEchelon-
EN.pdf)

------
antpls
Other quote from the reuters article ([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
boeing-737max/designed-by...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-releases-internal-messages-that-
disparage-737-max-regulators-idUSKBN1Z902N?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews)) :

“I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any
type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX,” Boeing’s
737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.

“Boeing will not allow that to happen. We’ll go face to face with any
regulator who tries to make that a requirement.”

~~~
markdown
> Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot

He's one who really needs to go to jail. Why didn't they name him?

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Because Boeing is a company of national importance and also a monopoly on home
turf, vital to the US security and economy so they're untouchable in the US.

Just like how no VW employee went to jail in Germany for emissions cheating.

~~~
cedivad
VW wasn't nearly as bad. People need to go to jail over those deaths and their
legacy used as a reminder for those that come next.

Here is another damning Boeing message, follow the source for more:

[https://twitter.com/cedivad/status/1215558552229683200](https://twitter.com/cedivad/status/1215558552229683200)

~~~
FooHentai
As bad by what metric? VWs emissions overshoot has been projected to cause
1200 deaths: [http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-
deat...](http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deaths-
europe-0303)

~~~
close04
For most people _actual_ deaths are more immediately apparent than _estimated_
deaths. By driving a car, riding a bus, or taking a plane any regular person
also contributes to some of those estimated deaths. But this is very different
from causing direct deaths by knowingly disabling a safety feature on a car,
plane, or bus for example.

------
playeren
> The company official said the language used and sentiments expressed in
> these communications "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company
> is taking appropriate action in response."

Do you think this means:

a) Change the environment that fosters those kinds of messages?

-or-

b) Punish those who wrote those messages?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Both, but as a _higher_ priority, c) punish the exec team on whose watch it
happened.

Bring back the concept of responsibility. They are paid to be in overall
responsibility for anything that happens under their remit.

Time was such a behaviour in the department, or under their leadership would
have ended a career. Realising the actions of a lowly engineer or janitor can
end their gravy train, they might implement adequate oversight.

~~~
freepor
Why just end a career? Why not go to jail?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well I did say punish not merely fire. I would expect that to encompass
imprisonment and fine, depending on severity. Ending or severely restricting
the career and income should be the bonus, lower standard of proof consequence
merely for the event happening whilst they're in charge. Separate from a court
fine of 5 years salary, all bonuses and share options, or given 3 years in
clink. :)

With adequate penalty and frequent enforcement, usual behaviour would
change...

------
cm2187
I must say that seeing the SEC’s handling of internal emails in the Tourre
affair taught me a lesson about internal corporate communications. Some
personal emails which were unrelated to the affair were published in the SEC
report (clearly for the benefit of the front page of newspapers). The extract
contained jokes where the sentence had been edited to alter the meaning of the
sentence.

The published extract was “whole building is about to collapse anytime now.
Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab […] standing in the middle of all
these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily
understanding all of the implications”

Out of memory the […] that was left out by the SEC said something like “as
kindly calls me xxx, but there is nothing fabulous about me, just a tender...
etc”. And that was an email to his girlfriend, nothing to do with any
transaction.

Morale of the story: no jokes, even innocuous, they will be weaponised against
you in bad faith. Stick to boring, neutral language. And no personal
communications on corporate systems. Write everything on the assumption it
will be published with bad intent.

~~~
rusk
It amazes me in this day and age that people don't realise that anything they
say on these systems can be dug out and read by anybody, anywhere at any time
...

~~~
chopin
You're not thinking about this with every keystroke even if you know this. I
certainly don't.

~~~
rusk
I absolutely do. If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were
speaking across an open plan office.

The only way you'll ever know what I actually really think about something
controversial is if you ask me face to face, or maybe, on a phone call.

~~~
chopin
> If I'm typing it I'm checking myself just as if I were speaking across an
> open plan office.

I do _this_ , too. I would call this good manners. But that's wildly different
from being aware that the contents might be used in discovery or being
published out-of-context. Especially the latter provokes the Richelieu
citation.

~~~
rusk
what?

------
rurp
Wow, this article is full of amazing quotes. I highly recommend reading the
entire thing. My favorite one I haven't seen posted yet > "I still haven't
been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year," one employee says
in 2018, referring to an exchange of information with the FAA.

Utterly unbelievable, yet also totally unsurprising given everything else
that's come out about Boeing recently.

~~~
aguyfromnb
> _Utterly unbelievable, yet also totally unsurprising given everything else
> that 's come out about Boeing recently._

What amazes me is that the same thing is happening with Tesla, but HN hardly
bats an eye, because Silicon Valley:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-push-to-build-a-self-
dri...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-push-to-build-a-self-driving-car-
sparks-dissent-among-its-engineers-1503593742)

Engineers speaking up and getting fired or resigning. What's worse is that, as
opposed to having a _choice_ to fly on a 737 MAX, driving on autopilot on
public roads puts other people at risk.

~~~
_ph_
There is a very fundamental difference. The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving
assist system. Like with plain cruise control, the driver is still fully in
charge and needs to pay enough attention to take over at any moment. All
accidents happened because drivers were not paying attention at all.

With the Boeing, the MCAS system put the 737 in a flight state which trained
pilots couldn't recover from.

~~~
aguyfromnb
> _The Tesla autopilot is a mere driving assist system._

Yes, when you follow ambiguous instructions, which contradict things like,
"Only waiting for regulatory approval!", or"1 million robotaxis this year!" or
"Cars can drive by themselves coast-to-coast!"

~~~
_ph_
The instructions given to the owner of a Tesla are not ambiguous. No where it
is claimed that the Tesla drives itself without supervision.

------
bikeshed
Cool how Boeing's response appears to be to find and punish those responsible
for the communications, not those responsible for deceiving the FAA and
regulators in order to certify an aircraft that never should have left the
design phase.

------
boardwaalk
The cost (not just money) of this to Boeing needs to be way, way more than the
cost of the additional training/certification/better sensors and software or
whatever would have been needed to do this right to begin with.

We can’t let this to come down to a cynical “what’s the cost of a life?”-style
calculation.

It needs to be much more consequential relative to the crime/incompetence than
Equifax, Facebook, etc.

------
farseer
>>The language used in these communications, and some of the sentiments they
express, are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking
appropriate action in response. This will ultimately include disciplinary or
other personnel action, once the necessary reviews are completed.

And that my friends is all that you need to know about the boeing of 2020.

~~~
auiya
About a year ago, I was considering investing in Boeing. I would have made a
good chunk of change doing so. I'm glad today I decided not to.

------
jacquesm
It's interesting that Boeing apparently has a bigger issue with the language
used than with the culture that fostered these communications in the first
place. That is one sick company, trying hard to pretend it _was_ a sick
company.

------
theprop
The McDonnell Douglas leadership seems to have put business ahead of
engineering (and safety) at Boeing (from other pieces I've read). There are at
present just two manufacturers of big planes in the world (China may have a
third soon I believe) so it would be terrible for airline safety/efficiency if
Boeing did go bankrupt (which is still unlikely) and left just one company
with no competition. I think what we should all hope for is a return to
Boeing's engineering-centered roots. There are tens of thousands of people who
work hard at Boeing, do incredibly difficult work and take justifiable pride
in the amazing planes they build. It's a shame that some bad leadership has
led to these tragically avoidable crashes. As disturbing and infuriating as
these messages are, I believe Boeing if it is once again engineer-lead can get
back to strong form and that's what we should all hope for.

~~~
eldelshell
Basically, aircrafts manufacturing is a duopoly: Airbus & Boeing. Isn't there
enought market for these two as to not having to cut costs anywhere and
airlines pony up with whatever price they set? I know we're talking big
numbers here, but come on, Airbus can't produce enough aircrafts to satisfy
100% of the market, so why obsess with cost cutting in such ridiculous things
like avionics or simulators?

~~~
forgetfulusr
It may be Exec culture or just culture in general. We all want to be
successful/ better than the competiton. It attracts/feeds our narcissism and
eventually gets buried by people who only optimize for profit, success on
paper.

Can't we replace the finance folks with software yet? It seems that should be
the easiest to automate. They can see it, but of course they are closest to
the money, and can't let go.

------
shadowgovt
Any internal correspondence can become public information in a disclosure
proces.

~ first rule of corporate communications

~~~
Pxtl
Yup. Talk as much crap as you want in person, but what goes in email and web
messages and pull-requests and code comments must be immaculate.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Why? I’ve ragged on my employers in DMs, and will often express very blunt
concerns about quality/risks in emails or PRs. Providing my opinions in such
channels is part of what I’m paid to do. If my employer doesn’t heed my
advice, manages to majorly mess something up, and my comments come back to
haunt them, why is that my problem?

~~~
solatic
Because openness and transparency requires emotional security as a
prerequisite. Surveillance and transparency are not the same thing. If you
subject people to an all-seeing eye, people will default to covering their
asses, and you will not get the information you seek.

Attempting to force people to be vulnerable by unilaterally being open about
your own vulnerabilities is manipulative. You will get "my biggest weakness is
that I care too much"-type deflective responses at best and a cold shoulder at
worst.

In companies, a culture with emotional security is built first in private one-
on-one meetings and spread from there - it never originates in a public
(public within the company at least) setting.

~~~
AmericanChopper
I’m not sure how this relates to what I asked at all. If something I said at
work gets leaked to the public or a regulator, that makes my employer look
bad, why should I worry about that? That sounds a lot more like their problem
than mine.

> Attempting to force people to be vulnerable by unilaterally being open about
> your own vulnerabilities is manipulative.

This comment makes no sense to me. Aside from not relating to what I said, I
cannot possibly see how being open and honest is forcing anybody else to do
anything. Personally I speak my mind wherever I work, and if my employer
doesn’t like that, I’m more than happy to find a new job. Ironically, the only
people who have ever had a problem with it are middle managers trying to cover
up after themselves, and incompetent people that were somehow promoted to
technical leadership roles they had no business being in. People I have no
problems upsetting.

~~~
solatic
> Personally I speak my mind wherever I work, and if my employer doesn’t like
> that, I’m more than happy to find a new job.

This is more or less my point. If your employer was happy with it, then your
employer was the kind of employer attempting to build a transparent
organization (and worked to build emotional security etc.). If your employer
wasn't happy with it, then you and your employer have different opinions on
the importance of transparency, which points to a cultural mismatch, which
points in the direction of parting ways.

The key insight is understanding that it's the employer, not the employee, who
have both the responsibility and the power to set culture and direction. So if
the employer decides not to work on building transparency into the culture,
the employer will get an opaque culture as a result. Maybe this results in the
kind of problems that Boeing is suffering from now, maybe it results in
bankruptcy, maybe not. The employer is responsible and accountable to decide.
The employee's decision is much simpler - adapt or leave. Most people decide
to adapt; the potential upside to leaving is a murky gamble taken on faith,
particularly if people don't have a specific offer lined up at a specific
place that seems to be a better fit for specific reasons. So it shouldn't be a
surprise to you that employers get what they (intentionally or
unintentionally) incentivize.

------
btmorex
I think the only thing that can actually fix Boeing is bankruptcy, so I hope
that people refuse to fly on the Max even after recertification and it ends up
being too big of a financial blow to recover from.

~~~
oska
I agree. I'll be boycotting the Max just on principle, regardless of what
extra safety measures are implemented to get it re-certified.

I'm hoping (and kind of expecting) that people will build simple apps or
websites to check whether an advertised flight is on a 737 Max. It should be
quite easy for people to avoid/boycott this plane.

~~~
tigershark
Not on Ryanair. The CEO explicitly said that their plane allocation is defined
24 hours before the flight and if the passengers discover that the plane is a
max they are welcome to not fly but they won’t get any refund.Ah, and they had
the balls to rename their max planes to 737-8800 or something similar trying
to deceive everyone. Result: it’s almost 1 year that I don’t fly with Ryanair
even if before this I used it several times per year.

~~~
danw1979
Classic Ryanair. You can't fault the consistency of their customer service.

Thanks for posting this, it's genuinely useful.

~~~
oska
Interesting to note that Ryanair is currently exclusively a Boeing 737
airline. It has 367 Boeing 737-800 aircraft in service (the largest operator
of this aircraft) and 135 Boeing 737 Max 200 on order. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Fleet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Fleet)

------
linsomniac
"this airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys"

In the moment, I would imagine this comes across as sour grapes. With the
benefit of hindsight, that sentiment seems to hold some water.

~~~
mzs
It's about how bad the flight management computer is, the ridiculously short
testing timeline, and how it is likely to never be fixed:

[https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/12154759339661926...](https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/1215475933966192640)

------
CaptainZapp
With that pustule breaking up, releasing more and more of that really evil,
stinking and ugly slime I start to wonder if that plane goes into service ever
again.

Maybe the FAA will yield to poltical pressure. But I can't imagine any other
certification agency accepting responsibility for any accident occurring on
their watch now that more and more about the ugly, incompetent, fraudulent and
outright evil engineering process for that death trap comes to light.

A plane only certified by the FAA is essentially dead.

~~~
selimthegrim
It’s like a 49 state emissions car or a Mexican market auto. Maybe the Third
World will take it.

------
avionicsguy
I worked with Boeing during the 00's. It's when they started outsourcing
everything including IT.

Holy shit this goes deeper than I thought and some people are heavily cleaning
Wikipedia.

Didn't even know about this bit stealing rocket tech.:
[https://www.justice.gov/archive/criminal/cybercrime/press-
re...](https://www.justice.gov/archive/criminal/cybercrime/press-
releases/2003/branchCharge.htm)

Also check out: Darleen Druyun [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
probe-intensifi...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-
intensifies-over-secret-lockheed-papers/)

Phil Condit was ousted over Darleen and that's why Harry was brought in...
although the Wikipedia page doesn't mention any of this...fu wikipedia. He was
not "retired" he was forced out and Boeing was banned from Space Contracts for
5 years.

Damn I wish I save all those news articles. Whoever said the Internet is
forever is wrong! The Internet is fickle ...some things will be memes forever
and others will be forgotten.

And here's what happened to Harry Stonecipher:
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111019724886272076](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111019724886272076)

So much for "cleaning" up the company culture. F Boeing. The company not the
engineers. I also know some very talented people there.

[Edit Note:1] The WSJ link should not be paywalled as it's an old article...at
least it wasn't for me.

[Edit Note:2] The WSJ link is very detailed about what went down if it ends up
blocked/paywalled I will...f'ck it I will edit wikipedia....grrrrr history is
not fickle and Condit was and is an ass.

------
rs23296008n1
From the rpr article, "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are
supervised by monkeys" This says a lot about Boeing's internals / culture.
Probably their subcontractor interaction quality as well. While we can't take
one comment in isolation it is a relevant indicator.

Its telling there were no[?] whistleblowers able to come forward beforehand.
Consequences are too real and the search for the guilty talkers likely
continues and I don't even think they were even remotely whistleblowers.

Perhaps technical prowess isn't as highly respected as it should be? Too many
corners cut? Excessive priority of business over engineering? Timelines too
tight? Budgets too small? Misallocations?

Don't know. Lots of symptoms of an unhealthy organization. It will become an
interesting case-study regardless.

------
djabatt
This sort of stuff makes me freak out when I find out I am flying on a Boeing
product. I expect people that are making aircraft to be better than when this
NPR reporting purports.

~~~
zxienin
It’s panicking thought to assume that similar culture and malice doesn’t exist
at Airbus, just because they haven’t had their public 737 MAX event yet.

------
slumdev
If it's not Airbus, I'm not going.

~~~
HappySweeney
While I agree with this sentiment, buying tickets specifying Airbus, and
having the airline switch them to Boeing one week before travel time (as
happened to me this holiday season) means I wouldn't be able to do any long
distance travel. Is there a way to mitigate this?

~~~
slumdev
On AA, for example, you can improve your odds of getting an Airbus aircraft if
you route through a former US Airways hub (e.g. CLT).

You might find similar patterns for other carriers if you search by city
pairs.

Equipment swaps are pretty unusual for international routes, too, because it's
harder to reaccommodate people. I think you were unlucky and shouldn't expect
that in the future.

------
makomk
If anyone is reading the original messages, this might provide some context
for the comments mocking the competence and training of the FTC's AEG:

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/senat...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/senate-committee-opens-737-max-probe-over-whistle-blower-complaints-
about-faa-inspectors-training/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/faa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/faa-
misled-congress-on-inspector-training-for-boeing-737-max-investigators-
say/2019/09/23/05e9f986-de08-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html)

------
swebs
Does anyone know where we can read the actual documents? This article is
missing a lot of information.

~~~
ejolto
The Washington Post has them [https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/boeing-
documents-reve...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/boeing-documents-
reveal-internal-communication-among-employees-about-737-concerns-f-
a-a/ad2f371a-8f0c-4615-9c08-2bd2c5e536b2/)

~~~
jannes
Direct link to PDF: [https://context-
cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do...](https://context-
cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/4a7b7481-6aa0-4821-bb23-39944c5df948/note/af453341-bce7-40e0-8da3-1a6afcbbd61f.pdf)

------
adev_
>The monkeys will ruthlessly suppress any evidence

Yeah, I would even say that from the following part "are inconsistent with
Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate action in response."

The Monkey will fire the clown, while still being employed and probably not
being hold responsible for the shit they have done.

Management liability at its best.

------
supernova87a
Sounds like Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani might be a good candidates for
a new management roles at Boeing!

------
sudoaza
I'd like to know what they say internally about other Boeing planes.

------
bookofjoe
[http://archive.is/9fEvf](http://archive.is/9fEvf)

------
jordache
scrap all those planes.. F-ing Boeing

------
noodlesUK
_' The company official said the language used and sentiments expressed in
these communications "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is
taking appropriate action in response."'_

The company is taking action in response. Against its employees. Not the ones
responsible for killing hundreds of people, but the ones who were calling the
program out on its flaws that led to those deaths? If I were working on a
safety critical program and I thought it was risking lives I'd lose my shit.
The employees that said this should be getting an "I told you so" badge, and
the executive team should be going to prison. Fuck Boeing for this.

~~~
dgzl
That's just not how massive companies work. Sometimes the leaf-level employee
knows a secret to improve the entire system in significant ways, but they'll
never be heard. Sometimes the root employee (we'll say CEO) catches a earful
from any given section of their company they don't like, regardless of how
accepted or pervasive it the sentiment is, and that employee could be picked
from the tree. It's just how it works in a massive structure. Someone at one
end thinks the values and ethic is one way, and the people at the other end
have an entirely different understanding.

~~~
noodlesUK
There’s a difference between knowing something that would improve a system and
knowing that there are specific flaws with a significant degree of lethality.
It should be acceptable to miss someone telling you the first (if perhaps a
missed opportunity), but it’s negligent to miss the second. It sounds to me
that these people were taken aback and appalled by the cavalier attitude
towards safety. If you have a decent number of professionals telling you
something is unsafe and you ignore their cries, and then you kill people,
you’ve fucked up in a big way.

Edit: more to my original point though, the response should be to improve
internal processes to prevent this kind of tragedy again, rather than to throw
the people doing the right thing by speaking up under the bus, saying it’s
against company culture to call out dangerous risks.

~~~
dgzl
To me, your attitude is that problems shouldn't exist because we should solve
them, as if there's a magical process that guarantees perfection. But what
happens when we miss something? What happens when an employee has a thought
about an engineering technique that maybe didn't quite make sense, but
speaking out would disrupt an entire chain of command within the culture we
invest into day-in day-out, and they get distracted by one of the million ways
to do it these days and don't end up dealing with their thought? What if we
miss this moment and some things get by that shouldn't. Is this not human to
some degree?

~~~
tareqak
We can cross that bridge when we get there. At the moment, getting there seems
to be the problem because if you hide problems and you ignore the people
complaining about them, then you get the situation we are in.

~~~
dgzl
> if you're human, then you get the situation we are in.

Fixed that for you...

------
tw04
My favorite quote:

>The company official said the language used and sentiments expressed in these
communications "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking
appropriate action in response."

Values? Your values appear to be maximizing profits at the expense of human
lives. Your response to: "the guys developing our simulator were emailing back
and forth they'd never fly on this plane" shouldn't be - let's fire them. It
should be: how did management fail SO HORRENDOUSLY that the feedback from
these testers wasn't pushed up the chain so we could build a reliable product?

The fact that we're this far removed from the accidents and they still don't
get it tells me the company probably needs to just fail.

~~~
ryanisnan
I completely agree. It's a great example that they are still incapable of
owning their mistakes, and cannot be trusted without a significant dressing
down. Let them fail.

~~~
Waterluvian
Except American interests will trump all so they'll play as dirty as they need
against Airbus and kill Canadian aerospace in the process.

------
tus88
This is shocking. Said by a cynic.

------
blaisio
I think this is a reminder - do not say or do inappropriate things using
company resources (chat, email, VPN, etc). Don't complain about co-workers,
don't joke about breaking the law, don't say or do anything rude or
disrespectful. You'll get about 5 seconds of happiness from a joke that can
ruin your career.

~~~
TrueDuality
I'd blunt that with: It is still appropriate for you to respectfully raise
concerns with coworkers, management, etc using company resources. That
especially includes if you suspect something may actually be illegal, in
violation of a contract etc. Basic human decency and ethics aside, getting
fired is still better than going to jail as a scape goat.

------
blululu
Someone once gave the sage advice of never using the word 'kill' in your code
base. 'm_Object.KillListeners();' can sound pretty bad in court. A lawyer can
try to make your source code a legal matter, and a jury is free to interpret
'm_Object.KillChildren();' as being proof of willful negligence. Of course,
this doesn't really matter when you're actually exposing willful negligence
over your internal communication channels.

~~~
jacquesm
> man kill
    
    
        KILL(1)     User Commands                    KILL(1)
    
        NAME
           kill - send a signal to a process
    
        SYNOPSIS
           kill [options] <pid> [...]
    

Probably not a unix user then?

~~~
tirpen
That's exactly his/her point.

To a techie it's obvious what it means, but if the code runs on some hardware
that ends up killing people for real and the code gets inspected during
discovery, having words like that could be a liability since jurors are less
likely to understand the technical meaning.

I worked in the automotive industry for a few years, we where told not to use
the terms "crash","kill","die" and a few others anywhere in code or
documentation for exactly this reason.

