Back when I did accounting for a few years, I routinely found more than one way to solve the problem at hand. And I cross-checked.
I remember in particular one instance, where I spent a day tracking back to three garbage "test" orders that a development team was injecting into production (our live accounting systems), assuming no one would even notice in the midst of the normal "slop" in the system due to incorrect coding and habituation to "these systems are outdated/buggy/German/yadayadayada".
I find it kind of unfathomable that e.g. a destroyer class ship would not have multiple means of knowing where it is -- founded upon real-world, what you can observe around you and in the sky, situational awareness. And that they would not be cross-checking these as a matter of routine.
You're a war ship. Do you think e.g. the enemy is going to tell you before they take out or corrupt your satellite navigation?
'But we're not at war.'
Well, you spend billions and billions each year on training exercises. How about some of the simplest, least expensive, and most direct training possible, on a routine basis? I.e. run your bridge and crew with a persistent eye towards ingraining the skills before you need them?
Not constant bullsh-t schedules that deplete them and inhibit learning. (How well do you remember the day after pulling an all-nighter?) But skills that will prove critical, and the vigilance to be pro-active in using them.
That includes training for stress -- including functioning during sleep deprivation. But not as a lifestyle.
Anyway, same for me, in software. Cross-check. Don't assume. But a lot of what I've seen around me, is anything but that. Even and especially in our so-called profession.
There are definitely professionals -- I've worked with some. Whether there is a well-defined, high-skilled profession? Yeah, that's a lot less clear.
It seems the navy needs to be asking itself what is actually professional, as well.
I remember in particular one instance, where I spent a day tracking back to three garbage "test" orders that a development team was injecting into production (our live accounting systems), assuming no one would even notice in the midst of the normal "slop" in the system due to incorrect coding and habituation to "these systems are outdated/buggy/German/yadayadayada".
I find it kind of unfathomable that e.g. a destroyer class ship would not have multiple means of knowing where it is -- founded upon real-world, what you can observe around you and in the sky, situational awareness. And that they would not be cross-checking these as a matter of routine.
You're a war ship. Do you think e.g. the enemy is going to tell you before they take out or corrupt your satellite navigation?
'But we're not at war.'
Well, you spend billions and billions each year on training exercises. How about some of the simplest, least expensive, and most direct training possible, on a routine basis? I.e. run your bridge and crew with a persistent eye towards ingraining the skills before you need them?
Not constant bullsh-t schedules that deplete them and inhibit learning. (How well do you remember the day after pulling an all-nighter?) But skills that will prove critical, and the vigilance to be pro-active in using them.
That includes training for stress -- including functioning during sleep deprivation. But not as a lifestyle.
Anyway, same for me, in software. Cross-check. Don't assume. But a lot of what I've seen around me, is anything but that. Even and especially in our so-called profession.
There are definitely professionals -- I've worked with some. Whether there is a well-defined, high-skilled profession? Yeah, that's a lot less clear.
It seems the navy needs to be asking itself what is actually professional, as well.