> [Step 1] Question every requirement. Each should come with the name of the person who made it. You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from "the legal department" or "the safety department." You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement. Then you should question it, no matter how smart that person is. Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb.
This is not quite as innovative as you might think, I guess you are advocating for the Chernobyl approach: "Let's turn all safety features off and see if it breaks!"
They weren't testing a safety procedure, they were testing whether they could get rid of a safety feature. Specifically they were checking whether the plant's turbine could provide enough power to keep coolant flowing without the help of a counterweight system.
I REALLY doubt the recent high school graduates "yes boys" he brought in are even capable of providing the "name of the real person who made that requirement."
come on bro, you must know somewhere deep inside that this is more complex and consequential than fucking twitter of all things.
I know that the US government is more complex than twitter lol. I just think it's stupid to automatically invalidate an idea because it was tried in a less complex system.
> [Step 1] Question every requirement. Each should come with the name of the person who made it. You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from "the legal department" or "the safety department." You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement. Then you should question it, no matter how smart that person is. Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb.