“I’ve spoken with 60 air traffic controllers tonight about what Sean Duffy said at the White House today,” said one journalist. “None of them are buying what he said.”
Air traffic controllers are rejecting US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s explanation for Friday’s nationwide flight ground stop, raising questions about the Trump administration’s account of a communications failure that disrupted air travel across the United States, affecting an estimated 1.5 million travelers.
Washington Examiner homeland security reporter Anna Giaritelli told CNN’s Laura Coates during a Friday night interview that she’d spoken with 60 air traffic controllers about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ground stop, which was just the third to ever occur.
“None of them are buying what he said,” Giaritelli said. “The controllers were saying, ‘We don’t buy that this is actually what’s happening, the reason that Sean Duffy is saying this has happened.’”
At work we recently performed a forklift upgrade of a critically important system. New hardware, around 30 new servers, updated OS, new software version.
This week two different people in IT leadership reported on the effort to the entire IT department in the monthly meeting.
As a person who has been intimately involved in the project for more than a year, it was amusing to hear them get almost every detail about the project wrong. They didn’t accurately describe what was done. They didn’t report the correct reasons the upgrade happened. About the only thing they managed to get correct was the name of the application.
This is a kind of whisper-down-the-lane problem, except you have to add that at each step as the details are communicated up the chain, each person summarizes them based on their understanding and their expectation about what their direct supervisor can understand. And many of the people in that chain really have less than a basic understanding of what the system does, to say nothing of how it does it.
However, all the people in that chain do not have any real reason to lie. They aren’t trying to hide the truth or cover their asses. There are no ulterior motives involved, beyond trying to report a success. There was no massive failure of the upgrade, but even if there was, no one in our organization gets fired for an honest mistake.
Now apply that same circumstance to anything that this administration does and understand that anyone in a leadership position in President Pedo’s government got there because they are racist, sexist scum who believe more than half the citizens in this country deserve to die or they are perfectly willing to let more than half the citizens in this country die if they see some benefit to themselves. Also consider that in order to keep their job they need to at least appear to be dumb enough to not outshine the dementia-riddled moron in command.
Of course everything they said is wrong. It can’t possibly be correct.
Now, in addition to that, insert an intermediary step between each one, where a hallucination-prone AI summarizes what the previous person said.
Love that leadership not involved in the day to day did the department update. Not a chance we’d let the team get full credit for their hard work
One person did list the names of the people in our team who were involved in the effort.
I appreciated that, but I kind of wish they had asked us what was involved.
It’s not just the pat on the back IMO. It’s the personal development (giving a presentation in front of a big group) and giving people face time with the department / company. That’s how you promote from within the department, grow your staff and build skills
I’m not disagreeing with you, but if the person most critical to the effort (and most deserving of recognition) heard you suggest that she should have been given the opportunity to present the changes, she might hunt you down and kill you. In a violent and gruesome manner.
Future team lead energy right there, and she sounds like she should be voluntold to present on a semi regular basis.