You had a 67% chance of being killed on your first tour with British Bomber Command, rising to 85% after two tours. Were the airmen "alright" with that statistic too, when they were forced into a cockpit? There wasn't much of a choice in the matter for the average soldier on the ground (or in the air) on any side in that great conflict. Most of them were conscripts and desertion potentially carried the death penalty even on the Allied side. That loss of individual agency is part of the war's many horrors; whether you were alright with it or not was quite irrelevant.
It's worth noting psychiatric casualties for bomber crews, for the Allies at least, were sky-high with about a quarter of those not killed in combat being discharged for mental breakdowns. Whether that rate of breakdown is from the extreme risk, or from sometimes coming back smelling like burning flesh, is up for debate.
And then take Japanese soldiers, where that wasn't a 67% change, it was 100% that you would eventually get conscripted into a Banzai charge, or a Kamikazi brigade, or given a bamboo spike, and told to hold the Americans at bay.
We really do a disservice when we try to take WWII and put it into a modern relativistic historical analysis. The scope of evil and sacrifice here is completely different from our western conception of War as a video game where kids fly drones and random pixels die.
"The fundamental problem is that the earth was in a balance,"
Nit pick but, is there anything that says the earth isn't or won't be at a balance?
Sure, climate change will be hugely impactful, especially for humans, but I figure the earth will still be in balance, just not the one we are used to.
Historically huge swings in climate did occur, they also often coincided with catastrophic extinction events. Forgive me for not caring that the warmer Earth is newly “in balance” for whatever heat-loving species emerge.
I'm not arguing the point you're arguing against, but I felt the need to point out that those two extremes are not what we are talking about, we are talking about a new "balance" that is known to have supported life in the past.
"Spadacini explains that Energy Dome uses CO2 because it can be converted into liquid under pressure at 30°C, compared to minus 150°C for air. Highview Power’s liquid-air battery therefore has to use cryogenic technology to liquefy air, but the Energy Dome system requires far less power, resulting in cheaper costs and a higher round-trip efficiency, the company says."
1 in ~10 million seems to be the average risk of an american to die from air plane, so, in your lifetime (100 years, if you live to 100 - average lifespan is 80 it looks like), that goes up to 1-(9,999,999/10,000,000)^100 ~ 1 in 100k
Since that number is about the average risk of an american to die (and not the risk per flight), using it to calculate the risk per flight is erroneous
Actually the 1 in 10 million figure I used is based on number of fatal crash per flight. I thought it was roughly 1 in 10 million flights ending in fatal crash, but that was couple years ago. It's actually more like 1 in 3.7 million flights. so if you take 100 of those flights, I figured the odds would be 1 in 37,000.
No they're using the gambler's fallacy, each flight you take is unaffected by any flight you've taken previously. Flying a load of times isn't reducing the denominator.
It’s not the gambler’s fallacy since they’re treating each flight as an independent event:
Probability of dying on one flight: 1/10,000,000
Probability of surviving one flight: 1-1/10,000,000 = 9,999,999/10,000,000
Probability of surviving 100 flights: (9,999,999/10,000,000)^100
Probability of not surviving 100 flights:
1-(9,999,999/10,000,000)^100 ~ 1/100,000.
I don’t know if the initial assumption of 1/10,000,000 survival rate is accurate, but the math is correct.
And when you have a probability that’s very small, you can skip all that and approximate by multiplying the probability by the number of events: 1/10,000,000 * 100 = 1/100,000. That’s thanks to the binomial approximation.
Isn't gambler's fallacy more about expectation of future result skewing based on past outcome?
If there's a very dangerous airplane ride that results in 10% of all flights ending in crash, if you take that plane 10 times, wouldn't you expect 1 crash on average?
Thought of this wholesomeness aspect today as well:
I watch a lot of strength training/weight lifting videos on TikTok, and I would say the vast majority of the comments are supportive, positive and/or constructive.
I appreciate a lot my comment is apples vs oranges (because times are very different) - but I can still remember using MySpace, Facebook and Twitter for the first time. They all started pretty wholesome and pretty great before 'the real world' kind of seeped in.
Early Twitter (in particular) was a game changer for me, who was working from home for the second time in my life. I had people to talk to and bounce things off and all of a sudden work wasn't so lonely (as I had been the first time I tried). There was a genuine community feel without all the snark and unpleasantness.
I don't use TikTok, but I hope they'll be prescient enough to see where the others have struggled and keep on top their content policies, communities and moderation.
I think one of the problem is when networks start mixing topics and people.
If it focuses on people, you can meet with real friends, and that's fine, because you get along.
If it focuses on topics, it is also fine, you meet people you don't know, but because you talk about subject you all enjoy, that's fine.
Problem starts when the two mix. If you enjoy astronomy for example, the other guy may be an asshole, but you probably don't even know and you get along fine, because all you do is talk astronomy. But if the network thinks that because you like the same thing, he must also be your friend, then your feed starts filling with assholish things.
I have seen this play out on Instagram a few years ago.
Stage 1: The person is relatable, the videos are simple and to the point.
Stage 2: The following has grown, and the person now posts more frequently, however the quality/humor/personal touches are reduced. Less content about fitness, more about personal lifestyle
Stage 3: Monetization. Workout PDFs, constant advertising of fitness products (protein shakes, weight belts, etc), lots of hollow 'motivation' posts. The audience keeps growing, but the community has disappeared.
I don't mean this abrasively but, referring to an unknown third party for credibility and then telling people to do their research does not seem overly convincing to me.
This is the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. A vaccine which induces antibodies should prevent spread because it will prevent your body from producing large quantities of the virus and hence prevent viral shedding.
The remaining factors which still require masks are the non-perfect efficiency (~5% of people will still get it), social factors (related to creating two classes of people; the immune and non-immune) and perhaps some others I forgot.
While I think I agree with you high-level, you and GP may be talking past each other when you use “prevent” when you more precisely mean “dramatically reduce [possibly to the point where you effectively prevent]”.
You're right. I also just found out about research (mentioned somewhere downthread) on differences between antibody expression in different tissue types (some IgA subtypes predominantly found in mucosa while other IgG types being dominantly systemic and/or in the lower respiratory system). The discussion there is on a whole other level of precision and points toward a mechanism which might indeed make it possible for vaccinated people to transmit the disease with some degree so it's not quite as clear cut as I presented it.
Though, intuitively, I'd still bet that vaccination will reduce viral shedding and the total load shedded, thus also reducing transmission.
