303
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
303 points (96.3% liked)
News
23266 readers
3424 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Southwest Airlines uses Boeing aircraft exclusively. Lucky me gets to try my luck in two weeks. 🙄
Thousands of Boeing flights happen every day. Statistically, you'll be fine.
Everybody who has ever died in a plane crash was also, statistically, going to be fine.
I don't think you understand statistics
... So they got on a plane knowing they were definitely going to die? They didn't get on a plane with the very same remote chance of dying in a plane crash as every one else has, only to then die in a plane crash?
I guess they should have checked the Lemmy statistics before they boarded, where "it's unlikely to happen to me" can be extrapolated to "it will never happen to anyone".
Fuck, why does Boeing even bother pretending to do all that maintenance? Apparently planes don't burst into flames because they're protected by magical statistics. Just throw a screwdriver in the engine, it doesn't make any difference.
The downvotes genuinely scare me.
It's a bad point, that's why.
Like with poker, you can do everything right and still end up losing. This is what happens when you deal with anything that has any type of chance involved.
And just like the lottery. Even if you win, you just got ridiculously lucky. You still really made a bad move with the money.
No, it’s not. If I asked you to get on a plane that had a 1 in 3 chance of crashing, would you?
Statistically, you’d be fine. The absolute risk of a plane crash may be minimal. But if you are on a plane that is crashing, that is little consolation. That is what the commenter was pointing out. It is a valid presumption.
If you were on a crashing plane, would you be statistically fine?
No of course not. Noone is arguing that the statistics will protect the you, only (effectively) that it's such a rare occurrence that you might as well just assume youll be fine.
Saying "well some people weren't fine!" Is a silly point. Noone is denying plane crashes occur.
The comment you are disputing
It relays that way. The other commenters said they don’t understand statistics, and statistics don’t work that way.
Then why are you disputing the comment. There isn’t anything untrue or illogical in that comment. I’m genuinely scared that there are people in here that don’t understand that if you are in a crashing plane, you’re not worried about statistics. Frightening, actually.
Incorrect. The comment I was responding to was about the down votes being "scary." I'm not disputing their claim, I said it was a dumb point. It's like challenging someone who says it's a waste of money to play the lotto by pointing to the fact that some people have won.
It's true that some people have won. But its still a bad point. We are talking about the ridiculously rare exception as if it's really worth considering.
Like I said, frightening.
I don't follow. Even with Boeings current struggles, it's still ridiculously safe to fly. Saying "some people have died!" in response to someone pointing out this fact - in response to someone expressing concern about the safety of flying - doesn't make any sense, regardless of the fact that we agree it should be addressed.
That's not how statistics works.
Just because you win the lottery, that doesn't mean it was bound to happen. It's the same with bad luck. Your tile floor in the bathroom is literally more dangerous than an airplane. Do you steel yourself to confront death when you step out of the shower?
You're statistically unlikely to be killed by a shark. Do you want to share a swimming pool with one?
Statistics aren't a suit of armor and they can be deeply misleading without context. If every plane in the air crashed today, how would the statistics change? Would 0.00001 become 0.00002? Would you tell people there was nothing to fear because it's still statistically unlikely?
I would guess that every single passenger jet that has ever crashed had at least one person who reassured themselves "it won't happen to me".
If more than a million Americans safely swam in that pool yesterday, I would feel comfortable swimming there today.
Depends on the kind of shark. Most sharks ignore people. You can pet reef sharks. People pay thousands of dollars to swim with them. That's the context.
The context here is that planes are almost excessively safe. The door was sucked off of one and no one even died. Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?
So you're when it comes to my shark analogy you demand nuance down to the specific type of shark but for planes you're happy with "It was safe last year so it must still be safe now"?
Is this some bizarre shill campaign or is everyone trying to be crowned "King of science and rationalism"?
And do you know what the FAA said about it? "This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again". But don't worry about the whistleblowers saying management has been covering up defects and cutting corners, "the statistics" say it's safe.
I could load you on to a burning plane with a drunk and the answer to "Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?" wouldn't change until you hit the ground.
But don't worry, because "statistics".
Everyday there are thousands of Boeing flights that go off without a hitch. It's still statically completely unlikely that anything bad will happen to you on a Boeing flight. So much so that it's probably not even worth worrying about at all.
But this isn't to say that we should just let their bs slide. This is exactly why flying is so safe: we are sticklers for making sure they do everything right. If that's going in the opposite direction, we should nip it in the bud long before it gets anywhere close to the point where you should question the safety of it.
But, again, we aren't even remotely close to that now. It makes no logical sense to be afraid of flying right now, even on a Boeing jet. And I would like to keep it that way which is why I think their issues need to be addressed.
If you swim in a swimming pool with a shark, you are not statistically unlikely to be killed by one.
This is a really terrible analogy, for a really terrible way of thinking about risk.
Assuming you have a point here, then based on the logic you seem to be trying to to use, you should also never drive a car, go outside, eat a sandwich, etc. You know, since there was a point when people doing those things died, and those people thought they'd be ok too.
I think it's clear that you're never going to get my point. Maybe you could apply for a management job at Boeing?
Pretty sure I got your point, it's just terrible.
If it helps to tell yourself that, you go right ahead.
Until you aren't.
Dibs on your nick.