Why We're Still Talking About "human Error"
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
thevoid.communityOtherstory
calmneutral
Debate
0/100
Human ErrorSafety CultureError Analysis
Key topics
Human Error
Safety Culture
Error Analysis
The article discusses why 'human error' remains a prevalent concept, and the discussion revolves around understanding the context and implications of this term.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
46m
Peak period
1
0-1h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 22, 2025 at 10:24 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 22, 2025 at 11:10 PM EDT
46m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 22, 2025 at 11:10 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45677496Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 9:11:58 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
How could one have improved the systemic conditions in the examples given? What would be an example of process improvement that could not be considered a "more automation added" type of thing (eg. ensuring more information is available to the human operator faster and more obviously is some sort of automation).
Automation here is seen as a synonym for added complexity, even if it can be used as part of a systemic improvement to processes to provide the better framework for any operator in any state to make a better call in the moment. Esp in software, automation is part of our processes (heck, software engineering is automation), so I am a bit confused about the message.