|
|
Post by Runningflame on Sept 17, 2024 3:26:53 GMT
Turns out Bugsy is the biggest jabroni of them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on Sept 17, 2024 7:39:18 GMT
Something was once said about fairies being jerks? And it's been confirmed once again -_- |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Sept 17, 2024 12:31:29 GMT
I'm still not sure that Bugsy understands death let alone what's going on This may be normal for her. Or the fairies in general. Judging by Red's reaction when she thought Jeanne had killed Ayilu, they seem to understand real death well enough.
it used to be the case that in a mass casualty event where there's something in the environment that's killing people the first thing to do is get the casualties to safety. That’s more useful information than Bugsy has here, however. What do you mean? Annie just told her that the tendrils are draining the students' life force. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 17, 2024 17:54:16 GMT
When analyzing a disaster there's a tendency to find one isolated factor on which to hang blame, but the vast majority of the time that's a low-res take on what actually happened. Generally tragedies are the result of a string of sub-optimal decisions any one of which would have no or minimal consequences most of the time, in many cases nearly all of the time. The immediate cause is what started the avalanche or made a hole in the ship. The underlying cause is why everyone did not already expect an avalanche or a hole in the ship, and prepare to it, when it’s obviously a thing that happens, so it would happen sooner or later. The circumstantial chaotic mess is between these two. One thing that happens on the regular is normalization of deviance. People will cut corners and ignore those fiddly safety rules and security procedures because more than 999 times out of 1,000 there will be no consequences in doing so. Doing slightly risky things becomes standard operating procedure and everything's fine, often for years... until it's not. It's not about being out of their depth, they just keep doing such things until eventually enough circumstances align that they become channelized into making bigger and bigger bad decisions, and then the shit hits the fan and they panic and shut down or freak out. I suppose it's human nature to have a preference for short-term benefits, especially if they think that even if there are bad consequences it won't affect them. Why the underlying reasons for lack of physical preparedness would not apply to lack of mental preparedness as well? In case of Titanic, the owners could not just say “Now start rigorous emergency drills — let’s learn from the disaster of Arctic! What? Lifeboats? Nah, let’s not learn from the disaster of Arctic…», could they? It was either one, or another, or cutting corners becomes very conspicuous. And those below them had to deal with all the other problems handed to them (what’s the chance there were only two cut corners?) on top of their own. Other cases are different, but once cutting corners is accepted at one stage, the others are not far behind (even if not already compromised by dependency on something that thanks to the cut corners only works until you need it). |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Sept 17, 2024 21:57:29 GMT
When analyzing a disaster there's a tendency to find one isolated factor on which to hang blame, but the vast majority of the time that's a low-res take on what actually happened. Generally tragedies are the result of a string of sub-optimal decisions any one of which would have no or minimal consequences most of the time, in many cases nearly all of the time. The immediate cause is what started the avalanche or made a hole in the ship. The underlying cause is why everyone did not already expect an avalanche or a hole in the ship, and prepare to it, when it’s obviously a thing that happens, so it would happen sooner or later. The circumstantial chaotic mess is between these two. Yeah the proximate (immediate) causes get all the attention... until the lawyers get involved. Also people don't see the disasters that don't happen because of good planning and policy. In some industries it's easy to defend maintenance budgets and rigorous safety culture but in most there's continuous pressure to relax standards and spend money on more visible things that generate prestige or things that generate returns. One thing that happens on the regular is normalization of deviance. People will cut corners and ignore those fiddly safety rules and security procedures because more than 999 times out of 1,000 there will be no consequences in doing so. Doing slightly risky things becomes standard operating procedure and everything's fine, often for years... until it's not. It's not about being out of their depth, they just keep doing such things until eventually enough circumstances align that they become channelized into making bigger and bigger bad decisions, and then the shit hits the fan and they panic and shut down or freak out. I suppose it's human nature to have a preference for short-term benefits, especially if they think that even if there are bad consequences it won't affect them. Why the underlying reasons for lack of physical preparedness would not apply to lack of mental preparedness as well? In case of Titanic, the owners could not just say “Now start rigorous emergency drills — let’s learn from the disaster of Arctic! What? Lifeboats? Nah, let’s not learn from the disaster of Arctic…», could they? It was either one, or another, or cutting corners becomes very conspicuous. And those below them had to deal with all the other problems handed to them (what’s the chance there were only two cut corners?) on top of their own. Other cases are different, but once cutting corners is accepted at one stage, the others are not far behind (even if not already compromised by dependency on something that thanks to the cut corners only works until you need it). My point is that people are air dropped into crises only very rarely. People get in over their heads one small step at a time, only staggering and slipping into the depths on the last few. We can try to put experienced people who are good at acting under pressure into positions of authority... though unqualified and inexperienced people are always more easily found and often require less compensation. Extraordinary people who function brilliantly under fire are hard to find and expensive to hire. Normal people can do well even in a crisis with some forethought, maybe some minimal advance planning and training if appropriate... but over and over this is skimped on or just not done and they're often set up for failure years in advance. The biggest legitimate reason In My Humble Opinion is economics, scarcity of resources. Trade-offs have to be made, it's just a fact. If the Titanic requires 12k tons of rivets to be built, and we can source rivets that cost $2k/ton (in 1910 money) and have a 0.1% failure rate under stress testing or rivets that cost $1.8k/ton with 0.13% fail, it's understandable to want to use more cheap rivets and compensate by placing the cheaper ones far above the water line in low-stress applications. The problem comes in when the economics of a project make it unviable and it is revivified anyway through corner-cutting. Remember OceanGate? People forget that Titan worked, it successfully dove to the Titanic wreck repeatedly... until one day it didn't, though to be fair that wasn't just corner-cutting in the design and construction, that was also working a hull past it's shelf-life. Economic reasons are understandable. In some cases the risks can be justified, in many others it can be argued about and at worst, people can just opt to assume the risk or not and what happens, happens. Over time the house always wins, though, so the happier ones are the ones who take their winnings and cash out before they bust. The psychological reasons behind why easily foreseeable disasters happen are harder to get at. People actively try to defeat investigation into them. The more understandable ones relate to wanting to be liked or wanting to have a sense of safety (that bad things can't really happen to them). Most people can probably relate to a shop boss who's too easy-going on the safety rules because he doesn't want the guys to think he's too uptight. More opaque reasons seem to relate to identity, believing in/wanting to prove superiority to, or wanting to win an argument or "get one over on" someone else or people in general. Most of the time these things are small and petty, and can be easily compensated for when bad results happen... but sometimes the holes in the slices of swiss cheese align (multiple failures happen within a given time frame) and then we're investigating why people doubled down instead of just taking the L, recognizing reality and taking responsibility. (Seriously, if you guys haven't watched that vid on Costa Concordia, you should; some of the details are fudged a bit for comedic purposes but it's a good example of someone doubling down and doubling down again when they should've quit.) Just out of curiosity, how many people reading this work in buildings where there are servers pressed against wet walls (the walls where all the pipes go) or beside water heaters/boilers and/or directly below water tanks? That seems to be some sort of fetish among building managers at places I've worked at. ...but to tie all this back into the comic I suspect Bugsy is acting the way she's acting for a whole slew of reasons regarding how the Foleys come to the Court, how the Court wanted to use the Foleys, and how Bugsy was miseducated as a teacher. We'll see what happens if/when the reality of the situation becomes fully apparent to her. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Sept 18, 2024 1:19:58 GMT
Transformed students not having an identity/being a person (magically speaking) until they get a name, the bodies we see not holding the soul of the person and them being dead or some combination of those is looking like a really strong theory to me. I really think getting a name and not having them inherently is more significant then we realize.
Building off that, I wonder if this is an alogory or somthing for non named characters in the stories that build the magical world. Like, in fairy tales no one really cares about non named characters, in a lot of instances they really aren't even people practically speaking. Maybe that has some literal results.
|
|
