A few of us still remembers option 3) Regulation And also 4) Properly working anti-trust laws.
Electricblush
joined 1 year ago
If you are traveling across the Atlantic to get from Los Angeles to New York i would argue that you are traveling the wrong way...
Yes, and?
The point of distance is to take it into aggregate, for both modes of transport.
This is in fact the exact point i am making.
Per trip measurement implies that every trip (regardles of time or distance traveled) has equal danger.
I sort of answered this somewhere else but i will reiterate.
Using this metric you are sort of assuming all trips are equal. No matter how short, or long you are assuming the base danger is the same. This means that driving 100 meters is just as dangerous as driving for a whole day. (See what the problem is?)
And if we look at this premise in isolation: "Am i going to die on this trip"? If the trip is 100m, then a plane is probably out of the question either way. And if the trip is to a different country.. then hey, look at that, the sources you cited come into relevance (where pr distance a plane is safer) and you would have to calculate the danger of completing that specific trip in a car VS flying that distance with a plane.
You are generalizing on terms that make no sense, since "total number of trips" in cars include all manner of different scenarios of some times extremely varying degree of danger. So in order to have data that is statistically relevant and in any form comparable you have to choose a different metric.
So to answer the question again "Am i going to die on this trip?" or to extrapolate "should i drive or fly on this trip", if you cant use generic statistics, the answer will be "it depends. You have to calculate danger for the trip specifically".
I honestly think you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.
"Per trip" is a horribly poor metric. Because there is a fundamental difference between a trip down to the store, or a cross country trip, even with a car. Also it would be extremely dependent on where you are going, where you live etc. etc.
For the discussion to have any meaning you have to abstract it to a metric that makes sense for all people, or else you would have to also figure in where you usually travel, how good a driver you are etc etc etc.
At that point its a completely meaningless semantics exercise because for instance taking a plane to work is not realy valid for me since i live in the same city as i work... Or lets do it the other way around: If i need to go to Spain tomorrow, its safer for me to fly then to drive there. (This is based on your own sources)
I would think real statistics would be more interesting then peoples emotions when talking about what is actually dangerous.
Very interesting 🤔
And your point about metrics is pretty spot on.
In the end it becomes an exercise in trying to find the metric that best supports your argument.
We have also been jumping around a bit on geographical limitations. And in for instance Scandinavia, the original premise might be closer to real due to better road safety.
I think implying some sort of myth or ruse is missing the mark hard on this subject.
From your own source:
Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles[c] flown,[citation needed] and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by distance traveled.
So I guess this is the point you are trying to make?
Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents
Yes, and how many die every year from plane crashes in sweden?
If we take a relatively big plane (450 passengers) as an example. One has to fall out of the sky every 3. Years to match the car accident number...
3186 deaths over 10 years VS 1.19 million every year.
(This is globally. Sweden and Norway(where i live) will naturally have pretty radically lower numbers then globally when it comes to road safety.)
But look at that air travel number again: 3186. Over 10 years. Globally. Commercial Air travel is fucking safe. Its horrible for the climate. But its safe.
Whatever way you slice those numbers it comes up air travel i safer. Feel free to find actual statistics that contradict me. :)
This is complete horseshit.
Are you aware how many flights take place every day?
Vs
How many fatal accidents pr flight?
The fact is that almost every time a fatal accident happens in a (commercial) plane anywhere in the world, you hear about it. Because if a plane crashes a lot of people die in one dramatic (and rare) event.
Fatal car accidents litteraly happen every minute of every day. Almost none of them go on the news. (Cause reporting them all would be impossible).
Let me also post some sources, since you did not:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
https://www.icao.int/safety/iStars/Pages/Accident-Statistics.aspx/ Air traffic: (3187 fatalities over 10 years)
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries (1.19 million people every year die on the road)
It's not the guy in the trenchcoat next to you you need to worry about.
It's the fact that some unknown entity owns/has set up the WiFi.
Anyone working with complex network setup and admin will tell you how much you can abuse owning the network a user is connected to.
The network guys at work never use public WiFi, not hotels or anything. Neither do I, even with my much more limited knowledge of network administration.
view more: next ›
Virtual environments are really not viable for music production. Latency and other inconsistensies makes it a no-go.
High level Music production requires very low audio and input latency in addition to consistent and 100% accurate sound reproduction.
A virtual environment is a wildcard here that I at least would not bother trying to make work. (Not saying it can't be done, just saying it would potentially be a big headache and extremely conditioned on spesific hardware, drivers and configuration settings.)