There are times when it takes longer, such as when Fukushima had a meltdown. The thirty-second answer only starts to explain how it happened, the thirty-minute one makes you start to realize that a good part of it is because people fucked up, and the full answer, which requires going over reports since the construction of the plant shows you just how comprehensive the fuck-ups were and why it was only a matter of time for something that catastrophic to happen.
But yes, usually these things can be figured out pretty quickly. It doesn’t take nuclear science to figure out why they can’t do their job.
I totally agree with you that systemic failures require a systemic evaluation to figure out what actually happened. Most of the jobs I’ve worked have been as an analyst of one kind or another, so I of course know that many things do not have quick answers.
So yes technically I should have added some kind of qualifier, but you seem to get that I mean that common, routine job functions or system functions pretty much always should have fairly simple explanations as to why something routine happens or does not.
So, it takes me a while to do a root cause analysis of a quarter or years worth of one kind of failure in a complex process or another, but I very rarely have to manually investigate some specific totally unknown thing in person, as the system is (or should) be designed in such a way that tbis stuff is tracked and easily analyzed.
Contrast that with: Why isn’t the report released yet?
Oh, because a data set I need access to is offline right now, or some dumbass changed the access creds without informing me prior, I emailed them a week ago, and they have not responded.
That is a simple answer.
