chartjunk

the readings did well to recycle a lot of the same information and conclusions. sometimes they approached things from different perspectives, but it still seemed like the same story. and it is an interesting story at that.

with all the different ways we humans can communicate there are equally as many ways to miscommunicate. that might just be life. that might just be nature's way of being nature and all. we suffer for it, but how are we to stop or prevent miscommunication? we can analyse it and come up with theories and explanations but can we definitively say that we can stop or prevent something tragic huge like Three Mile Island or the Challenger explosion from happening again?
i dunno.

what piques my curiosity is the vast craziness of communication that took place in these case studies, especially with the Challenger shuttle. there were many meetings of people and groups, memos, and other documents, charts, etc., etc.; all these smart, smarty pants-ers saying different things or some instances the same thing bt they can't (or won't) say it straight, or correctly, or effectively in general. no one seemed to understand each other and that is a shame.

i want some accountability. i want some heads to roll. the documents do not mention what, if any, consequences there were for all the engineers and managers, etc. in both case studies who were acting like idiots and got people killed-ified. i'm guessing tho that nothing much happened to anyone and that we should all just use this opportunity to learn from both experiences. but i do have a question regarding the Feynman experiment. if it was such an obvious answer to why the o-ring would fail in low temperatures why did he need to do such an experiment at all? and apparently. it was a flawed experiement at that. shouldn't there be eyebrows raised over a significant scientist performing a flawed experiment? like, what else could he be doing wrong? and why are we then so excited about it?