I have no doubt that many HN readers will wonder why I've posted this. It's not specific to hackers, I know. It's only tangentially related to technology, and it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with startups.
But there are questions to ask, and lessons to be learned for startups, and for entrepreneurs in general. Here are some of the questions raised for me. Perhaps you can think of more:
What processes do you do by hand that could be automated? The timing was done by hand - a notoriously error-prone process. relentless automation can systematically weed out systematic errors, provided they are properly monitored and tested. Then you can forget them, and let them do their job.
Do you have the right people doing the right jobs? The report is that the time-keeper was an inappropriately chosen volunteer. It's notoriously easy to leave a job in the hands of someone who may not get it right when it's important. And just when isn't it important? (actually, sometimes)
Do you have the right error reporting processes in place? The team lodged an appeal, and clearly that didn't go anywhere. Why not? The entire bout could surely have been replayed and the timing checked. The result, in truth, should never have been in doubt, and could easily have been overturned.
Do you have the right corrective measures in place? After reviewing the bout, surely it should be straight-forward to correct the result. When you have a mistake reported, can you roll-back and make it right?
And finally (for me - perhaps you have more points to make), always, always consider the individual. This poor woman was left distraught on the piste, unable to leave, in full view of the audience, in tears, her lifetime's work hanging in the balance, out of her control.
So let me ask - how well do you look after your users?
Personally I'm glad this made HN simply because it is an interesting story and I virtually never check the mainstream media. To me, the failures in the mainstream media, including focusing on kitch or faddish things that are of no particular interest to me, are always informative in the sense that I think they can help people building the next generation of news/media platforms -- empowering users to get the information that is relevant and valuable to them.
In this sense, I think this is extremely relevant, simply because I think we all know that the old newspaper model is dead, but nothing obvious has risen to replace it (besides news aggregators, either as semi-free or targeted Bloomberg-esque services).
This is, also, fairly obviously, one of those problems that has the problem of scale immediately rather than post facto, so it is interesting to explore those aspects of the problem -- insofar as there are a lot of places already reaching out to a niche audience, but nothing that obviously brings them together.
Thanks for submitting this story, this is a great reflective comment. The one point that I'd add is that, going into the matches, no-one felt time-keeping could be a big thing that would break, or be significant. It's always (maybe tautologically) the things we think that are too small to notice that trip us up the most.
I read somewhere that the team tried to lodge an appeal but didn't front the $500USD required for the appeal to be considered. I found it extremely odd that at a place like the Olympics, you'd be asked to front money for an appeal.
On another note, I wonder when computerized judges will start to replace humans for stuff like synchronized diving. All of those post-dive slow-mo footage I've seen seems to suggest that computers would be much more accurate/fair/subjective than the human eyes that are currently being used for judging.
I read somewhere that the team coach actually had to run out and find an ATM to withdraw money to lodge the appeal, while the athlete was sitting on the mat.
I guess a minor fee is OK to prevent troublemakers appealing every single ridiculous thing.
I believe just the starting of the timing is done by hand. The stopping is done when a contact is automatically detected.
I am on the "fence" about this article. It seems within the capabilities of a 15 year old to press a button when a referee shouts a word. The responsibility is great when the controversy hits, however.
> I believe just the starting of the timing is done by hand. The stopping is done when a contact is automatically detected.
That's exactly the issue, though - there are a handful of mechanisms in place to ensure that the clock stops and points are awarded properly - electrical equipment is used, buttons on the tips of the Epees are tested with a 750g weight, fencers test on eachother's masks before each match, testing kits are used to check wiring, etc., and the judges are there to watch movements to account for possible disputes. The task of starting the clock has been significantly overlooked compared to the task of stopping it.
Aside from this, the rules and the scheduling of matches are done with the assumption that there will be no major disputes, which needlessly compounds the damage from any dispute that happens.
I imagine the complexity of the system above is not primarily about stopping the clock, but to accurately detect whether a hit was placed.
To have this level of precision I imagine the judge's "allez" would have to be replaced with a racetrack style countdown and green. Otherwise attempting to detect when a specific spoken word has been said (either predicting it just started, or detecting that it has finished) sounds like a complex problem.
But there are questions to ask, and lessons to be learned for startups, and for entrepreneurs in general. Here are some of the questions raised for me. Perhaps you can think of more:
What processes do you do by hand that could be automated? The timing was done by hand - a notoriously error-prone process. relentless automation can systematically weed out systematic errors, provided they are properly monitored and tested. Then you can forget them, and let them do their job.
Do you have the right people doing the right jobs? The report is that the time-keeper was an inappropriately chosen volunteer. It's notoriously easy to leave a job in the hands of someone who may not get it right when it's important. And just when isn't it important? (actually, sometimes)
Do you have the right error reporting processes in place? The team lodged an appeal, and clearly that didn't go anywhere. Why not? The entire bout could surely have been replayed and the timing checked. The result, in truth, should never have been in doubt, and could easily have been overturned.
Do you have the right corrective measures in place? After reviewing the bout, surely it should be straight-forward to correct the result. When you have a mistake reported, can you roll-back and make it right?
And finally (for me - perhaps you have more points to make), always, always consider the individual. This poor woman was left distraught on the piste, unable to leave, in full view of the audience, in tears, her lifetime's work hanging in the balance, out of her control.
So let me ask - how well do you look after your users?