Hawiian missle warning

[bilby]

Speaking of idiots pressing dangerous buttons, it is absurd and seems unconstitutional that the US president can order a nuclear launch without the approval of any other person. Such a launch is clearly a declaration of war that should require Congress. Yet, the president can unilaterally give an order any second and anyone who doesn't obey it is a criminal.

Never in history has a US president been as mentally unstable and likely to launch such an attack on a personal whim, nor been so likely to completely disregard his military advisors out of infantile egoism. Thus, never has the need been greater to change this procedure to be in line with clear constitutional intent.

Well the problem with requiring Congressional approval is that, unlike wars of the eighteenth century, when mobilisation took weeks before any actual fighting started, a nuclear exchange could be over (and your ability to retaliate destroyed) within a few minutes.

By the time an incoming strike is detected, confirmed, and reported to POTUS, he only has at best maybe ten minutes to order a response; you couldn't get Congress to decide on a tea-break in less than a few days.

The situation for a US first strike is not quite so time critical, but if it's a decapitation strike against a nuclear armed enemy, its success is dependent upon secrecy, so telling a few hundred Representatives and Senators well in advance is a recipe for disaster - even if none are traitors in themselves, it's a poor idea to rely on them all being both intelligent enough and calm enough not to accidentally let the cat out of the bag, and an even worse idea to assume that their staff and families will either remain out of the loop, or keep their mouths shut. The temptation to tell your family and friends to get out of town, if you know a nuclear war is imminent would be immense, and in a situation that is sufficiently unstable as to have POTUS considering a first strike, any inkling of this would be enough to provoke an preemptive strike by the enemy.

TL;DR Nuclear War doesn't allow enough time to consult congress.

Having a two or three man authority might work though.

Valid points, although it is a matter of relative risks. Under Trump the risk of him ordering an unwarranted launch that triggers a counter-launch against us has become higher relative to the risk of us being attacked and needed to respond (although Trump has also increased the odds of us being attacked).

I seem to recall there were discussions around here during the election about this. Some people were considering voting for Trump (or not voting for Hillary) just to "shake things up" or because "Hillary is just as bad". It was pointed out to them that his obvious emotional immaturity and mental instability made giving him "the button" an unacceptable risk. Their rationalization was that it would require too many others to obey his orders and they would refuse. This, of course, ignores the obvious fact that most of the people in those positions got their by a life of mindless obedience and are unwilling and incapable of thinking for themselves or doing anything but following orders.
We definitely need at least a couple other people who must unanimously agree with the President, and they should be completely outside the military command and not a member of the Presidents political party.

The design of the system assumes (and has to assume) a competent President. The safeguard against an incompetent President is the people, who the constitution assumes will vote for a competent leader in their own interests; and the electoral college, who the constitution assumes will block any empty populist from this important post.

The problem right now is not that the President has the authority to launch a nuclear strike; it's that the people have the power and sufficient desire to elect a fucking moron to the presidency, and that the EC abandoned its remit and was swayed by public opinion.

You can try all you like to make the system foolproof, but sooner or later the American people will just come up with an overwhelming force of fools.

 

[Artemus]

that the (electoral college) abandoned its remit and was swayed by public opinion.

This. There was a constitutional safeguard in place and it failed. I wonder how the electors feel about their actions now.

 

[blastula]

The Constitution hasn't kept up to date with the nuclear age.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whoever it was that pushed the button is going to get quite a reaming.

The real reaming should be for the person who designed the user interface that made missile alert and missile alert drill so similar.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whoever it was that pushed the button is going to get quite a reaming.

I think that whoever designed the system is the one who should get the reaming. Someone accidentally clicking the wrong button is a thing that happens and any system should be designed with that knowledge in mind. A little popup box saying "Are you SURE you want to alert the entire state of Hawaii that there's an incoming ballistic missile?" adds about one second to the response time in the event of an actual missile and stops a lot of false alerts.

As it is, the next time that alert pops up, most people will treat it with the same severity as hearing a car alarm. Nobody hears a car alarm and thinks "Oh shit, somebody's car is getting broken into. I should call the police". They think "Oh shit, some asshole accidentally triggered their car alarm and is annoying me because of their incompetence".

Also, ya. Fuck Trump.

There was a confirmation box. The problem is there are so many confirmation boxes that we tend to automatically confirm them.

That's why when I need a confirmation box for something rather destructive I design them so you can't just accept the confirmation. An actual confirmation prompt:

Are you sure you want to delete job {Jobname}?

Enter {Jobname} to confirm.

(Context: These are the electronic representations of actual jobs in the factory. Errantly deleting one means a pissed customer.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Whoever it was that pushed the button is going to get quite a reaming.

The real reaming should be for the person who designed the user interface that made missile alert and missile alert drill so similar.

"You are about to send an alert that says ICBMs are incoming. Do you really want to do that?"
"Yes. No."
"Really?"
"Yes. No."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

that the (electoral college) abandoned its remit and was swayed by public opinion.

This. There was a constitutional safeguard in place and it failed. I wonder how the electors feel about their actions now.

Partisanship to political party is what enabled that. They need to be done away with.

 

[J842P]

Whoever it was that pushed the button is going to get quite a reaming.

I think that whoever designed the system is the one who should get the reaming. Someone accidentally clicking the wrong button is a thing that happens and any system should be designed with that knowledge in mind. A little popup box saying "Are you SURE you want to alert the entire state of Hawaii that there's an incoming ballistic missile?" adds about one second to the response time in the event of an actual missile and stops a lot of false alerts.

As it is, the next time that alert pops up, most people will treat it with the same severity as hearing a car alarm. Nobody hears a car alarm and thinks "Oh shit, somebody's car is getting broken into. I should call the police". They think "Oh shit, some asshole accidentally triggered their car alarm and is annoying me because of their incompetence".

Also, ya. Fuck Trump.

There was a confirmation box. The problem is there are so many confirmation boxes that we tend to automatically confirm them.

That's why when I need a confirmation box for something rather destructive I design them so you can't just accept the confirmation. An actual confirmation prompt:

Are you sure you want to delete job {Jobname}?

Enter {Jobname} to confirm.

(Context: These are the electronic representations of actual jobs in the factory. Errantly deleting one means a pissed customer.)

Yeah, it seems modern ux/UI can learn a few things from pretty typical CLI design.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Here's the screen the "reassigned" employee had to pick from. The designer needs to be flogged (note: the "false alarm" selection was added after this false alarm):

 

[Artemus]

Here's the screen the "reassigned" employee had to pick from. The designer needs to be flogged (note: the "false alarm" selection was added after this false alarm):

View attachment 14076

< speachless >

 

[bilby]

Here's the screen the "reassigned" employee had to pick from. The designer needs to be flogged (note: the "false alarm" selection was added after this false alarm):

View attachment 14076

I wish I could be surprised; But this looks to me like a very typical piece of modern interface (non)design.

The only time (in my experience) that anyone even thinks about interface design, is when sales people want it to look pretty (usually this is pronounced "include customer's branding"). Nobody seems to ever give a flying fuck about usability or functionality; And nobody, under any circumstances, allows anyone as lowly as the people who will actually have to USE the thing have any say AT ALL. After the poorly written specification is approved by the C-level executives and the sales and marketing people, what you are given is what you get, as far as the actual users are concerned. And woe betide anyone who says anything negative about the new system - negativity is the most heinous sin an employee can indulge in in the modern corporate environment.

Saying "This is a piece of shit. my five year old could have designed a less unfriendly and more functional interface than this" is a career limiting move - and the more true that statement is, the worse it's likely to be for your career prospects. Of course, if you stick to 'constructive criticism' , and say "Well, that's lovely, but it would perhaps be even better if it was made more difficult to click the wrong option by mistake", the boss hears "That's lovely", and tells you that your valuable feedback will be considered "for a future release", which is techno-speak for 'on or after the 31st of Never'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whoever it was that pushed the button is going to get quite a reaming.

The real reaming should be for the person who designed the user interface that made missile alert and missile alert drill so similar.

"You are about to send an alert that says ICBMs are incoming. Do you really want to do that?"
"Yes. No."
"Really?"
"Yes. No."

You missed the point. Adding multiple prompts isn't the answer, we tend to reflexively confirm them.

"You are about to send an alert that says ICBMs are incoming. Type 'not a drill' to confirm."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only time (in my experience) that anyone even thinks about interface design, is when sales people want it to look pretty (usually this is pronounced "include customer's branding"). Nobody seems to ever give a flying fuck about usability or functionality; And nobody, under any circumstances, allows anyone as lowly as the people who will actually have to USE the thing have any say AT ALL. After the poorly written specification is approved by the C-level executives and the sales and marketing people, what you are given is what you get, as far as the actual users are concerned. And woe betide anyone who says anything negative about the new system - negativity is the most heinous sin an employee can indulge in in the modern corporate environment.

Yup. I have spent 25 years now doing it right. What I've written wouldn't win any beauty awards. In many ways it's downright ugly and has the potential to be configured to hideous. (The installation scheduling screen permits colors to be attached to any of the currently 63 parameters describing a job--and they will be displayed in the result of merging all assigned colors. Nobody that doesn't use it should be allowed anywhere near the control file!) However, I have never been more than two steps from the end user. If something doesn't produce the right result in use I hear about it and fix it if we can find a better answer. Many times I have walked around amongst the users specifically asking about not only bugs but awkwardnesses and the like--and they know I'm after truthful answers, not politically correct ones.

Dogfooding is almost a lost art these days. Nobody should be allowed to make design decisions without either using it or at least working closely with those who do use it.

 

[dismal]

Here's the screen the "reassigned" employee had to pick from. The designer needs to be flogged (note: the "false alarm" selection was added after this false alarm):

View attachment 14076

I wish I could be surprised; But this looks to me like a very typical piece of modern interface (non)design.

The only time (in my experience) that anyone even thinks about interface design, is when sales people want it to look pretty (usually this is pronounced "include customer's branding"). Nobody seems to ever give a flying fuck about usability or functionality; And nobody, under any circumstances, allows anyone as lowly as the people who will actually have to USE the thing have any say AT ALL. After the poorly written specification is approved by the C-level executives and the sales and marketing people, what you are given is what you get, as far as the actual users are concerned. And woe betide anyone who says anything negative about the new system - negativity is the most heinous sin an employee can indulge in in the modern corporate environment.

Saying "This is a piece of shit. my five year old could have designed a less unfriendly and more functional interface than this" is a career limiting move - and the more true that statement is, the worse it's likely to be for your career prospects. Of course, if you stick to 'constructive criticism' , and say "Well, that's lovely, but it would perhaps be even better if it was made more difficult to click the wrong option by mistake", the boss hears "That's lovely", and tells you that your valuable feedback will be considered "for a future release", which is techno-speak for 'on or after the 31st of Never'.

Given the consequences for sending out the wrong message this is ridiculous. Everyone within two or three levels of designing/approving this is incompetent and should not be allowed to work in this field again.

I'm not familiar with what typical emergency warning software would look like, but I've seen lots of control center systems for industrial facilities and they look nothing like this garbage.

 

[bilby]

Well, it appears that the woeful interface design might not have been to blame - there is some evidence that the alert was sent intentionally by a person who was not aware that it was a drill:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/30/hawaii_missile_drill_attack_real/

It would appear that the only skill prevalent in the Hawaiian EMA is arse covering.

What a clusterfuck.

 

[Artemus]

Well, it appears that the woeful interface design might not have been to blame - there is some evidence that the alert was sent intentionally by a person who was not aware that it was a drill:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/30/hawaii_missile_drill_attack_real/

It would appear that the only skill prevalent in the Hawaiian EMA is arse covering.

What a clusterfuck.

And the employee has been fired

The employee "had a history of confusing drill and real-world events," Oliveira said.

Started this thread saying that I hoped the employee didn't get scapegoated. With the changing stories it's difficult to tell what really happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well his history of confusing drills and real-world events can be seen with the repeated accidental alerts that... umm...

...wait.

 

[bilby]

It sounds to me like most of the managers should be fired; Starting with the genius who ran a drill with a script that included the phrase 'this is not a drill'.

 

[DBT]

The Lamb has been sacrificed. Co-workers can breath a sigh of relief. Management can sleep easy. All is good.

 

[barbos]

I am just glad nobody blames russians for that, yet.