←back to thread

165 points starkparker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
thomascountz ◴[] No.44525985[source]
> We determined that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the left MED plug due to Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight necessary to ensure that manufacturing personnel could consistently and correctly comply with its parts removal process, which was intended to document and ensure that the securing bolts and hardware that were removed to facilitate rework during the manufacturing process were properly reinstalled.

A bit OT, but what a gorgeous whale of a sentence! As always, the literary prowess of NTSB writers does not disappoint.

replies(11): >>44526007 #>>44526135 #>>44526208 #>>44526228 #>>44526278 #>>44526384 #>>44526528 #>>44526546 #>>44526632 #>>44526688 #>>44535189 #
0rzech ◴[] No.44526228[source]
At school (Polish class in Poland) we were always taught to prefer complex and compound sentences over simple ones, because it's more elegant and speaks well the speaker/writer.
replies(6): >>44526371 #>>44526372 #>>44526429 #>>44526455 #>>44527083 #>>44531304 #
ecb_penguin ◴[] No.44526372[source]
It doesn't, though. It's pretentious and educated people will see through it. If the goal is to inform, then you should do the opposite.
replies(3): >>44526440 #>>44526605 #>>44529441 #
1. beerandt ◴[] No.44526605[source]
Only if you're using technical writing in a situation where you shouldn't be.

Problem is the state of most English education doesn't even teach enough for people to recognize proper unambiguous technical writing, let alone appreciate it or attempt to compose it.