potamic

BSL knows there two trains are in the block, two have entered and none have left. When LZB is running, it overrides BSL and allows both the trains in the block. But with LZB down and BSL taking over, it should have raised alarms everywhere that there two trains in a block.

afaik, Shinkansen does strict hardware enforced 30km/hr for manual mode. It cannot be overridden.

Yeah, that's what I meant was a failure in the system. Ideally, manual operation or drive-by-sight should be the default mode. Only the appropriate signal state should be allowed to override this and clear the train for higher speed, otherwise the system must enforce manual operation (hardware enforced speed limits etc). There should simply be no procedure for a human to be able to just override this.

Shinkansen does that afaik. 30km/hr cap during manual operation. No exceptions.

During normal operations you can act on the distant signal, because you know you're the only one in the block. But when falling back from linear to point signalling, you cannot make that assumption anymore. You need to get back to a state where you are certain you're the only one in the block, and the only way to do that is to reach the next main signal by sight after which you know you're clear for the that block.

Sure, another way to be certain is for the controller to manually verify that the block is clear and verbally communicate to the driver to override the protocol. But that is putting a lot of burden on human judgement, and even without this incident, anyone would agree is not the best idea.

I don't think this should be required for "normal" operations of the network. Sure, human override should always be there for when an exceptional situation occurs. But you should take extra precaution when that happens because you're already on your final safety net and relying on the judgement of a single human at that time, and that's okay because it's an exceptional situation that doesn't happen often and when it does you can afford to spend an hour or two to take that extra precaution.

The problem happens when the system fails so often that human override becomes the new normal, and because you're doing it every day you now cannot afford to spend the extra hour and tend to skip the extra precaution because you're doing it everyday and start to feel you know what you're doing.

> the signal shows whether you are allowed to drive in the next block, not into the current, as you are already in the current block. This seemed to be what happened here, the second train saw the green signal thought they are back in the automatic safety system and accelerated to 200km/h, not knowing that there is still a train in front.

Don't think the second train saw a green signal. They were in the middle of the block, while the first train was waiting just before the exit of the block (with a green signal ahead).

What I'm gathering from other sources is that the Spanish system allows the controller to override the point-based rules and provide manual clearance (because the blocks are long and it takes forever to reach the next signal by sight). It's a failure of the system imo. Ideally, the system, under no conditions whatsoever, should have even allowed such a practice to be allowed.

Breaking news: Guy on internet reduces an enlightening and constructive article to a triviality.

I'm sorry, but you did it first. I mean, being able to show correlation between variables in a formal, peer-reviewed study is something? What else do you expect scientists to do? This is how science works. You take an assumption, gather data supporting the assumption and establish facts from the assumption. You can't expect researchers to go by anecdotes and vibes when coming up with treatments, can you?

LPCAMM2 sockets were supposed to provide all the benefits of soldering while still being a socket. Anyone know the state of adoption?

How big are those verticals? When it comes to management consulting, they enjoy the Big 3 fame, but you don't hear much of them outside of that.

It means they agree they are culpable in the specified activity, and are ready to accept its consequences. The consequences depend on the nature of the activity and the actors involved. If the activity was illegal, they agree to be charged with the crime. If the activity was unethical, they agree to be censured by their peers. If the activity was uncompassionate or immoral, they agree that their standing in community may be affected accordingly.

But most importantly, by assigning blame, they have cleared the contention at hand, taking the critical first step towards resolution of the matter. Without this, the issue may simply be stuck in limbo, taking up valuable time and resources and may never be resolved even. By acknowledging their mistake, they also wish to signal to others that they have learnt a peronsal lesson and would try to avoid making the same mistake in future. So it carries a lot of implications and is not an empty phrase at all.

Sure there may be people who throw around the phrase lightly, whether one believes them or not depends on how they are viewed in the eyes of others. So unless there is reason to believe otherwise, I would give them the benefit of doubt. If you want to imagine a world where the concept of "taking responsibility" doesn't exist, look at politicians. Is that how we want our society to function?

Very interesting!

Could you elaborate on the nature of the work? I'm really finding it hard to imagine what kind of work would require one to work in the dark at all times.

You can move, but if your followers stay on the same AppView which decided to penalize you, you're effectively ex-communicated.

Why does this need a black room with no windows?