His supervisor was given a $20k bonus with a performance review that specifically cited that "Don Sanders is no longer working for BNSF." Insane that there are no criminal penalties for this nonsense, just penny fines absorbed by the company.
The railroad companies that merged to create what's left of the rail industry in the US are the ultimate evolution of "too big to fail" corporations. They've been kept alive/subsidized for almost 200 years now, and they've had time to tilt the playing field to their advantage just like e.g. Amazon, except they've had a lot longer to pull shady stuff.
If you look into what privileges the railroads have, it's insane. In some places they have eminent domain ability, and immunity from eminent domain. Since most of the railroad regulations are Federal, they override state law as in this case in Ohio:
Every time I see some analysis of an unprotected level crossing crash putting fault on a driver it blows my mind that the standard is still that trains have the right to just blow through intersections, everybody else be damned - especially given how infrequently utilized most tracks are. That kind of priority should require a crossing gate with positive verification that the gates are down and intersection is clear before giving the train signal to proceed. And I say this as someone who likes trains.
(And yes, I get the physics involved. Similar physics applies to cars versus people, yet outside of some very narrow and high utilization contexts like controlled access highways, cars' speeds are limited by having an implicit responsibility to stop to avoid collisions)
A car can typically stop within 5-10m at most city speeds (reaction time notwithstanding) and not really waste much energy in the process. A freight train probably takes about a month to stop, at the cost of a lot of energy/fuel. It absolutely makes sense they have right of way.
Cars waste exactly as much specific energy coming to a stop from a given speed as a train (or anything else) does. City speeds are limited precisely because otherwise the stopping distance would be too great. If you're driving 25mph in a city and someones jumps out in front of you and you hit them, you're not going to get blamed. If you're driving 65mph you will.
It only "makes sense" for trains to have unimpeded right of way if you're prioritizing corporate expedience over human life. Within my point there are still two main ways trains can move at high speeds - bridge crossings and crossing gates with positive control. If railroads want to operate at high speeds, then they should have to fix their infrastructure rather than being allowed to continue to dumping their externalities onto the public.
Of course "specific energy". You're either unaware a train is significantly more massive than a car, or you're deliberately trying to mislead with your statement. Neither is encouraging.
I would say that focusing on the total big number is deliberately misleading. When the goal is to accelerate (decelerate) mass using the friction created by the weight of the mass itself, the amount of mass cancels out. Likewise when the goal is to transport mass, then cost per unit mass is what matters.
As I said in another comment, we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier.
This is exactly it! Their speeds are limited around areas they're likely to interact with people to enable this. Agreed that slowing them down probably is wrong but they should definitely be protecting crossings.
You need to take physics again. You clearly don’t understand it. The physics of stopping a car is nothing like the physics of stopping a train. The mass is so different it’s comical for you to even say that. The propulsion system is not even remotely similar.
Thanks for the content free insult and wild hyperbole?
Mass cancels out and is irrelevant. "Train is Big" makes for a great red herring though. And "propulsion system", really? I'm pretty sure they both use wheels to accelerate and decelerate, not reaction mass or gravity bending sci-fi tech.
Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed, with the main difference being the constant factor. Therefore, for any desired stopping distance, we can set a maximum speed. This is done with cars, where areas of heavy interactions (cities), speeds are low. Moderate interactions speeds are moderate, and the onus is still on cars to stop even though it doesn't feel that way. And there are controlled access roads where speeds are high and you're not practically expected to stop for pedestrians in the road (though obviously you certainly should try).
Currently train tracks are treated as if they're controlled access, while often having few controls. That's the problem.
> Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed
Doh. Stopping distance is proportional to the square of speed. I knew this was wrong when I was typing it out, but I convinced myself it was right. I must have been thinking of the time. Being the square of the speed actually makes my point stronger, as the speed doesn't need to be reduced nearly as much to obtain a given stopping distance.
You are making a point that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned, correct.
Though what you don’t get is the concept of inertia at the train’s scale. You can’t just say “mass cancels out”. The specific energy to stop is the same per given amount of mass, however the amount of mass is not in the same league. Not to mention the CoF differentials between rubber/asphalt to steel/steel.
I agree that the lower coefficient of friction of steel on steel leads to less favorable maximum speeds for trains when applying the otherwise uncontroversial standard of possibly needing to stop at an uncontrolled crossing. I don't see what the amount of mass has to do with anything though. Like we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier and require more fuel to get back up to speed.
I'd say the problem with simply saying that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned is that railroads will understandably say that it will take time to comply, and then stonewall for decades because of funding/whatever. Whereas the standard of liability can be changed atomically after some notice period, and if the railroads haven't upgraded their crossings to be able to maintain the speeds they'd like, that's on them.
Also the framing is different. Prohibiting certain types of crossings is creating new regulation, whereas removing the unjust liability shield is fixing traditional corruption.
This is general problem anytime there is a person or organization which looks for problems. When a problem is found, an organization has two basic approaches:
1) Acknowledge the problem, prioritize fixing it, and then fix the problems in priority order.
2) Punish the person who reports the problem. This is a very bad idea but it is common. I once worked with a very good QA person. He was pushed out of the QA organization because he found too many bugs. In particular, there was one developer who complained because it took "too long" to test his changes. The reason it took a long time was the QA person was thorough, the software was complex, and the developer wrote buggy code.
More recently, I was punished because I reported web service had no authentication and could be used to access customer PII. My manger's manager screamed at me for reporting this and claimed it was not a problem.
Punishing people who report problems is destructive, and it has been happening for millennia. That is why we have the phrase "shooting the messenger".
I am not sure how you fix this problem. My guess is organizations have to adopt a culture where reporting problems is valued, and also where covering up problems is punished. Even then, organizations always have bad people who try to take the destructive path. I do not think there is an easy way to remove all dishonest, incompetent, destructive, and dysfunctional people from any organization. The best we can do is be vigilant, speak up, and accept we will sometimes be punished for trying to do the right thing.
Sometimes poor organizations hire an exceptional person, and that exceptional person keeps rubbing their nose in the fact that they're a poor organization.
It's a hard place for an organization when a thorough QA wont let the organization forget that they are incapable of producing good software. Faced with this dilemma, people decide "we're not the problem, that QA is the problem", and soon are back to producing more bad software.
I think you are right. One point I would make is being polite, truthful, and treating others with respect should not be punished. Especially when legitimate problems are being raised.
This has nothing to to with trains, but: I sometimes submit an article about a scientific paper because the paper itself may be too dense for people without specific domain expertise. Is this the wrong thing to do?
Occasionally we make an exception (in fact I just did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37441718), but for the most part you should post the best popular article and link to the specialized paper in the comments. The one domain where this rule doesn't apply is computing, since enough of the audience here understands that domain.
When the end result is fines that are absorbed as a cost of business, why would we expect anything different? It’s high time to hold the leaders of misbehaving companies to account.
What I don't get is this obsession with making corporations people, except for the criminal part. Why can't a company be "thrown in jail" by cutting its heads off a jailing them. They want control but they don't want liabillity/responsibillity, they want rewards but no punishment, wins/gains but not losses. No matter what they do, they still win somehow and we continue this cultural narrative of meritocracy and equitable treatment under the law, but also unlimited campaign financing
There is no obsession with making companies a legal person. It's done because it works, it's convenient, and it allows us to create giant organizations.
The thing you have to think about is what does it mean when someone says a company is a legal person? It means a couple of things:
- It allows companies to create contracts between themselves and real people.
- It allows companies to own property (real estate, money, equipment, etc.)
- It allows companies and individuals to sue other companies and individuals.
- It protects companies from arbitrary or unjust government intervention.
Companies also have another very good feature. Investors can limit their liability. For example, if I own 10 shares of a company and the company goes bankrupt, I am not liable for the company's debts.
This good because it encourages people to invest, and it also protects people from being wiped out because of a bad investment.
Note, companies are not the only legal person. Governments are also legal people.
My question for you is how would you do things differently? What are the advantages of these changes?
I'm more concerned with their unequal treatment when it comes to the law vs ordinary people. There should not be parallel systems of punishment for corporations where they can receive any treatment not also available to the regular human defendant (with the same plain stipulations). I'm particularly concerned by their abillity to often "settle" criminal charges with a fine and no admission of wrong-doing. Who is actually allowed to pull that crap besides companies?
Unfortunately, a corporation cannot be jailed because it is a legal fiction. It's not sentient. It's just a collection of people (employees), assets, contracts, etc.
RE: "I'm particularly concerned by their abillity to often "settle" criminal charges with a fine and no admission of wrong-doing."
This is a result of plea bargaining and individuals can do that if they can afford a good lawyer and have a good case. An example is in the United States, an individual could please no contest to a charge and pay a fine. It is more or less the same thing.
I am not sure if companies admitting guilt would really change anything. The main reason is no one cares if a company pleads guilty and the other reason is prosecutors can compel guilty pleas through plea bargains (i.e. either you plead guilty, or we will go to trial and ask for a very harsh sentence).
> Unfortunately, a corporation cannot be jailed because it is a legal fiction.
That seems... I'm not sure what, but we do limit what convicted monopolist corporations are allowed to do. It's not the same thing as physical jail, but just because we can't physically put it in jail doesn't mean we shouldn't find it liable for malfeasance and hold it accountable and extract reparations from it.
An example of this is with the Sacklars. They're functionally no different than an illegal drug cartel, and yet they are spared criminal sanction. Any normal person or group of persons doing what they did would be in jail forever and have literally every cent taken from them. But the Sacklars/corp get away with a civil fine that keeps most of their wealth and more importantly, their freedom, on the table.
A corporation is a thing that money goes into and money comes out of.
Let's say a human being--a flesh and blood one, not a corporation--is convicted of negligent homicide and is sentenced to 4 years in prison. 100% of that person's income is lost for 4 years. For the rest of their life, after they're out of prison, their income potential is drastically reduced.
If that's what our judicial system is, then let's do that to corporations, too. Try the person--the corporate kind, not (necessarily) the flesh and blood kind--in criminal court. If the person is convicted of a crime, sentence them as per the sentencing guidelines. If the sentence is 4 years, then take the revenue of the person over the previous 4 years. That's what the fine is.
Yes, and if a company breaks a law, there was at least one person at the company who also broke the law. When the mob breaks laws, we use RICO. There appears to be no equivalent for corporations.
Its even more stark in jurisdictions that simply do not have the "No contest"/Alford pleas. And thats if a prosecution even happens at all, which is unlikely.
Including the shareholders? That type of knee jerk reaction kinda fails to any actual scrutiny because the minute prison is on the table, Don Sanders will no longer be reporting to anyone. He’ll just be an independent contractor paid for an assessment.
Not punishing shareholders directly makes sense, at that level some sort of fine is probably best. But perhaps we should punish the board of directors for creating an environment where their subordinates need to look the other way when it comes to safety? They are the one who set the day to day policies and operations of the company. If enough of that happens, then maybe the board won't be as fast to push things without considering the consequences.
>But perhaps we should punish the board of directors for creating an environment where their subordinates need to look the other way when it comes to safety?
Due process typically requires mens rea, so you can't prosecute people for crimes that they're unaware of. I suppose you could phrase the law to be in terms of negligence, but that's not a silver bullet either. What if the company had a certified ESG box-checker (the "G" in ESG stands for "goverenance" which covers this sort of thing) and did all the required anti-"look the other way when it comes to safety" training sessions and audits, but for whatever reason the incident still happened? Do you still prosecute them? Seems a bit unfair to do so given their hearts were in the right place and took steps to prevent it. Or maybe you let them off? If that's the case what prevents unscrupulous actors from going through all the motions and ticking all the boxes, but not actually caring the underlying principles? eg. SOC2 or PCI compliance
> you can't prosecute people for crimes that they're unaware of
Actually you can. At least in the UK, and I assume it's similar in the US, directors can be held personally responsible for things that they allowed to happen through negligence even if they weren't directly aware of them.
I guess if you want to be a HN pedant you can say that they are aware of the negligence.
The idea that ordering audits and obviously-useless training sessions absolve someone of responsibility is ludicrous. If you run an organization that's conducting fraud (by the definition that any thinking person can see; latin is irrelevant) and causing a detriment to public safety, you should be responsible for it. If the board tried everything they could, in genuine good faith, and found that it was impossible to prevent their organization from causing harm, why didn't they choose to shut down the organization?
Consider a pit bull owner who, knowing that their dog has a tendency to attack people, takes it to a two-week dog training class and then lets it off the leash around toddlers. He did everything he could! Clearly he's not responsible.
>If you run an organization that's conducting fraud (by the definition that any thinking person can see; latin is irrelevant) and causing a detriment to public safety, you should be responsible for it.
So if you were running a bakery, hired some help to do some overnight prep/cleaning, did all the proper training, and it turned out that the guy was violating health codes, you personally should be held responsible? Note, this isn't saying the business itself shouldn't be liable if someone got sick or whatever, but that you personally should go to jail or whatever because it happened on your watch.
Do health code violations carry criminal charges in any relevant jurisdiction? Regardless, the situation is different for two reasons.
1. It's one isolated incident, and no connection can be made to show that the organization itself is responsible. If, instead, you trained 10 workers and they were all violating the health code, then I would find it hard to believe that it's coincidental, and you should probably be held responsible for whatever penalties that incurs.
2. In your example there's already a specific individual responsible (the employee who violated the health code, against orders). In the other, real example at hand, the legal system seems to be okay with saying that no person is responsible because all potentially-responsible parties are pointing fingers at the ghost of The Company itself. This system results in crime being committed that would hold criminal charges if an individual did it, but instead holds only fiscal penalties because it was done at scale by a group.
If the company has gone through the trouble of hiring a ESG officer, you're going to have a hell of a time providing intent. The ESG officer might be an insincere box ticker, but he sure as hell is going to make sure that there isn't a email along the lines of "btw I don't care about ESG compliance at all" sent by the CEO. Any litigation on this is inevitably turn into a gravy train for law firms, as they rack up tens of thousands of billable hours poring over company emails and arguing in front of a judge whether a CEO who's ostensibly sincere is really sincere.
In NZ we have health and safety legislation that includes personal fines and prison time as options for officers of a company.
It doesn't matter if the individuals involved are contractors, or volunteers, or the general public. The officers have a duty of care and if they breach it they can be personally liable.
But on the other hand, I don't think I've heard of anyone going to jail for that sort of thing. Which either means we have no major health and safety problems (seems unlikely) or the courts are out of step with parliament, which does seem to happen a lot.
I am no lawyer, but when someone gives money to someone else in order to commit illegal activities, in some cases at least the former can face charges as accomplices and/or facilitators. Here, if it turns out that the shareholders explicitly demanded ignoring security reports, or they knew about this but made nothing, then yeah.
yeah.. I feel like there's a nice middle ground between that and "Do whatever you want so long as it's profitable" where we have zero punishment to anyone when there's a horrific environmental disaster that's completely management's fault, since management did a good job of keeping all their shady policies off the record
No silly. They just complain to the feds when it happens, and get a nice big fat day of “getting away Scott free” while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost.
The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason.
If you follow this line of logic, it quickly gets absurd. The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis (eg. roads, police, schools, etc.). Private companies and individuals are inevitably going to reap benefits as a result. If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. Going back to the initial point, what are governments supposed to do? Not build highways? Not have the police because that would "privatize profits" because private business no longer have to fund their own security?
> The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis
Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted.
> If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government.
One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. But corporations are incentivised to reduce costs.
When these principles come into conflict, unfortunately the corporates tend to win (at least in the short term), at the expense of everyone else.
A “properly functioning” government would balance these conflicts such that the cost of doing business was not socialised, for example by preventing companies from “cheating” by externalising costs that their competitors do not.
I'm not sure my "theory" of government would fit into a HN post but it would include things like legitimacy, monopoly of force, right to taxation, distribution of income, democracy, representation... things like that. Ideally, modern government going back to the Magna Carta is there to protect those without power from those with it.
> Okay but how do schools, libraries, and roads fit into this?
Well a "properly functioning" and democratic government makes decisions about the allocation of resources based on the needs of society. For example, in my country, healthcare is mostly socialised, because we believe that this provides the best outcomes.
Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world. Just because it's not universally true doesn't mean that it's not a useful prism through which to view the world.
In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money".
>I'm not sure my "theory" of government would fit into a HN post but it would include things like legitimacy, monopoly of force, right to taxation, distribution of income, democracy, representation... things like that. Ideally, modern government going back to the Magna Carta is there to protect those without power from those with it.
Okay but that says nothing of why schools and roads are provided by the government but food is not. The theory I gave straightforwardly explains why.
>Anyway - the argument I'm making is that the phrase "socialise losses, privatise profits" accurately describes what actually happens in the world.
I'm not arguing it doesn't. In fact I'm arguing the opposite, which is that it's so good at "accurately describes what actually happens in the world" that it doesn't just cover "bad" things, it also covers "good" things. Outside of transfer programs, most things that the government does are "socialise losses, privatise profits".
>In the end, it's basically just a large scale version of "follow the money".
What's the principle here? I'm sure teachers unions and textbook companies benefit directly from public schools. Companies that hire knowledge workers also probably indirectly benefit. All of the groups probably engage in some sort of political lobbying and/or campaign contributions. Given all that, what should we conclude if we "follow the money"?
Food is provided by the government, it's just done on the basis of subsidies. The USA in particular has - or at least had - some serious problems with overproduction of certain grains due to misaligned government incentives.
Anyway - if you think you can explain the purpose of government in a single sentence then nothing I can say is going to change your mind.
Providing food stamps for low income is privatizing profits (the receivers of food stamps) and socializing losses (everyone who pays taxes).
It’s a pointless saying because it describes far more than the idiots who parrot it really intend and when you actually analyze what it means to be against it, the outcome is the opposite of what socialists want.
Today, corporate leaders are fundamentally, and therefore rationally, aligned toward optimizing short term results.
Their personal risk is short term profit shortfalls, while shareholders and the corporation as a whole carry the longer term risks.
Even more misaligned, is the case of public companies.
The shorter term someone holds shares, the more impact they have (buying & selling) on current share price, while demanding shorter term results.
Without actual personal accountability from company leaders, criminal & civil, no amount of long term corporate risk, will change their rational response to incentives.
There is a good reason that dynamic companies “over compensate” their leaders with eye watering stock grants. It isn’t well earned compensation. It is a tool to align interests, benefitting everyone.
But for slower growing companies, that is too costly.
So for all companies, liability protection for shareholders should be matched by liability acceptance not just from the corporation as a whole, but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance.
>but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance.
How would that work? Individuals actors within corporations are already responsible for malfeasance. If you took it upon yourself to commit some crimes to boost your KPIs so you get a bigger bonus (eg. threatening employees with violence), being in a corporation isn't going to protect you. Even if you're the boss and you're telling your direct reports to commit crimes, that's still a crime.
Malfeasance in the regulatory violations and culpability for irresponsibility sense. Not just criminal.
If the corporation is found culpable, or pleads no contest to culpability to reduce their fines or other repercussions, then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders.
Details, are not the point I am making, but that is one model.
Whatever the process, it would be set in the corporate bylaws, and a minimum process required by stock exchanges to maintain listing.
And possibly by law regarding corporate requirements - given law is what defines the balance of shareholder liability vs. corporate liability. This would add corporate employee liability to that balance.
>then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders.
What makes you think that "the big fish" will end up being punished, rather than the low level employees?
I can see this improving things simply because the possibility/process of accountability is likely to result in more responsible behavior from everyone.
They probably convince themselves they'll have moved on to something else before then, or otherwise get a hefty golden parachute when shtf and they bail out
Software has the same problems. Usually the core of the problem is the perception that training costs too much and so problems from bad practice are encouraged until there is a class action lawsuit. I have seen this occur many times in my career whether it’s due to missing security, accessibility, or reporting.
literally just put c-levels in jail until they figure it out, just like we do for fraud. Isn't the level of responsibility the reason for the high compensation?
No, this is stupid. Blame the technicians who know better but intentionally disregard the necessary controls because they want to earn a bonus. Imagine if software developers could be individually sued for writing discriminatory, privacy violating, or insecure software. Then the fraud you speak of would naturally separate away from unintentional defects and software would be less defective overall. Then the C-levels are directly responsible when they tolerate their technicians committing the fraud you speak of.
"Just quit testing, and the numbers go down" will forever be my meme like response to these kinds of idiotic situations. It's right up there with "You're holding it wrong".
My favourite one is "The delivery of good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible" which reminds me strongly of "the best software is no software at all".
I get you're being sarcastic, but what are they expected to say? "Yep, we're guilty?". Nobody seriously thinks that they should be acquitted on the basis of their denial.
> Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial.
Isn't that tautological? Innocent people, not being perpetrators, think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of their innocence, not on the basis of denial. It's only on the basis of denial if they actually did the thing.
metadat said perps, as in perpetrators. Between perpetrators and innocent people that covers all people. What am I missing? Maybe you read perps as peeps?
This is a happy case where the morally correct thing to do and the legally advisable thing to do align. If you don’t have anything truthful to say, just shut up. “No comment” is a valid and complete sentence. Lying is, if nothing else, extremely disrespectful.
I mean, yes, I would love to see a gravely sick institution volunteer, "we are flawed, we are obliged to change, and here are some well-coiffed heads on spikes as a down payment". It's an extremely unlikely scenario in the current landscape, but I don't think it's absurd to think that would be a better society.
My guess is what they meant was there is a policy prohibiting retaliation and the legal department never condones retaliation and it tries to prevent it.
Unfortunately, employees outside of the legal department may retaliate anyway because they did not get their way (i.e. they are angry someone reported a problem they wanted to cover up).
Another comment mentioned a QA tester who uncovered endless bugs until they were fired. The company didn't retaliate, but people start to get annoyed and then start to see the QA tester (who is actually doing their job quite well) as "just not a good team player" and eventually they leave or get fired. There was no outright retaliation, but the person who does the right thing eventually suffers for it.
I'm surprised everyone is jumping on the worker's side and assuming the supervisor is wrong. You folks have never worked with some anal retentive person being as annoying as possible inside the rules? Back in the navy we used to call this malicious compliance.
> Sanders’ supervisor berates him for calling the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
> “Why in the world would we ever call the FRA about anything? Unless I’m absolutely blatantly telling you to break the rules,”
This sounds like a reasonable position. You expect anyone you work with to go straight to HR, or your boss, or an auditing agency? Without talking to you first?
> “All I can say is I need your help right now to keep my ass from getting fired,” Sanders’ boss told him on the call.
> “I need to just look the other way?” Sanders asks, referring to the reporting of defects.
> “No. We just need to have a conversation,” his boss said.
So when asked if he's supposed to falsify reports, his boss says no.
> “Why can’t we just fix the (expletive) defects?”
This is a great sound bite, but doesn't have much bearing on reality. Complex systems have complex solutions. There's liability and lifecycle budgeting, impact analysis, ERP, etc etc etc ad nauseum.
All in all, it seems like the boss was somewhat shady, but its hard to tell - Nothing is black and white. I'm just surprised everyone is willing to take this implication and turn it into a witch burning.
If someone is following the rules and that's a problem, then you update the rules.
This probably doesn't happen because whenever the railroad faces scrutiny they want to point to the rules and say, "look how strict our rules are, what more could we have done?", and then in reality they wink and nod at each other and ignore the rules. The honest thing to do is to set the appropriate rules and then follow and enforce them as thoroughly and exactly as possible.
You should really read anything about how the railroad companies operate in the US. An "anal retentive" safety inspector is exactly what they should have, and firing them for doing their job is exactly what the railroad company would do, based off of recent and historical evidence.
Well, there’s a place for software to help here. If the inspection findings were well documented in a transparent system, then there’s a place to discuss the severity level. Then there’s less room for a cover-up. If an individual inspector is not grading things correctly, then it will also be apparent and amply documented.
As the level of corruption grows, the organisation starts to stumble and eventually gets sued to dust.
An interesting youtube on Russian corruption grew to such huge levels thatover 80% of the budget was diverted. Soldiers stole engines/tires/optics/fuel and so on and the invasion of Kiev failed.
I watch the "Virtual Railfan" youtube channel now and then and some (quite a few) of those trains have cars with wheel bearings just screaming from being worn out.
There are also videos of trains derailing where you can see those failing and cars piling up and tipping over.
I grew up in the 60s-70s with railroad tracks less than 200ft from our home and rarely ever heard wheel bearings screeching like that.
Reminds me of the case, where tax investigator were diagnosed with a clear "paranoid-querulatory development" or an adjustment disorder in almost identical expert opinions because they were too successful in finding tax evasion money.
They brought the state about 1 billion euros in back taxes from rich tax evaders from Lichtenstein accounts, including from a foundation of the Hessian CDU.
The chronic course and the incurability made the tax investigators unfit for service for all times, also in the sense of partial incapacity, follow-up examinations were presented as pointless.
The BNSF Railway Company is the principal operating subsidiary of parent company Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC. Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, the railroad's parent company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska.
