221–230 of 515 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say all this, yet waymo is demonstrably safer than the average driver. Uphill in snow maybe you’ll have to take the wheel, I’ll give you that.
Waymo hasn't tried driving outside its comfort zone, so I'll argue that it's not demonstrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, however, the impact is knowable: https://etsc.eu/increasing-the-survival-rate-in-aircraft-acc... Furthermore, distracted or unprepared passengers impact the evacuation of others trapped behind them. I’ve participated in evacuation training for flight attendants and have personally witnessed how a bungled jump down evacuation slide led to a 5-10 second delay. This was equated with ~20 fatalities due to s…
My objection isn't that the impact of banning electronics during takeoff and landing is unknowable; that's not the main issue with banning car radios, cars, or bare faces either. Instead it's that the impact is too small to be worth the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Excellent evacuation job While there many silly reasons to force people to shutdown electronics and such on planes, I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing. Over 50% of incidents (fatal and hull loss/non-fatal) occurring during landing: * https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flig... * https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg…
Even more so: Keeping the shades open could have really made a significant difference in this case, because it could have helped the flight attendants to quickly determine the exits that are safe.
For obvious reasons, ordering the evacuation, in conjunction with criteria such as which side and which doors is the Captain's job, or if the Captain is incapacitated, the First Officer. They will have access to far more data than the cabin crew will (e.g. whether the engines are safely shut down, circumstances on the ground thanks to radio contact etc.).
The Cabin Crew will not make the decision themselves unless they have been unable to establish contact with the cockpit (i.e. both flight crew incapacitated). In normal circumstances the Cabin Crew are only there to action the Flight Crew's orders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The inconvenience vs risk threshold here is similar to bucking a seatbelt which is hard to argue is a poor investment. It really, really is not. Seatbelts actively prevent injuries from sudden violent phenomena. "Paying attention" does absolutely nothing to reduce the forces you are subject to in the event of, say, a collision with a Dash 8 that was on your runway at landing. It helps post-incident at best. And I h…
Fast isn’t instant. At 30,000 feet there’s plenty of time, at ground level things can go very badly extremely quickly and rapid task switching increases panic. There’s several ways paying attention directly increases safety. First many evacuations aren’t fast enough for everyone to escape so even fractions of a second directly correlate to lives. Taking the crash position promptly reduces the risk of injury most impo…
For another, taking the brace position is something you do with forewarning and instruction from the crew, and the circumstances that lead to that forewarning are very capable of capturing attention. Additionally, safety briefings are given when the plane is very firmly planted on the ground pre-flight (cabin crew may repeat/re-explain instructions like how to put on a life vest or how to properly take a brace position during an emergency if circumstances permit). And that's really the crux of it: the time for a passenger to pay attention is while they are being briefed or otherwise addressed by the crew, and while they can properly review their specific plane's safety information and setup. After that, there is literally nothing for the passenger to actively pay attention to.
Staring very hard at the seat in front of you or out of the window "in case something happens" is not paying attention to anything but your own anxiety. You can be prepared and be ready for alerts without literally sitting and doing nothing; the human brain may not be capable of a lot of things, but it is very capable of that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once heard a wise doctor say that even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation. Likewise, the chance of someone being in an aviation accident is close to nil (you're more likely to be in a car accident), but you are either going to be in an aviation accident or not (a 50% ch…
> even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation I think this is rarely a productive way to think about it. For example, the chance that I might die in the next year is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and actuarial tables put it somewhere around 0.3%. [1] Should I refrain from ha…
My chances of being killed by a shark is basically 0%. But, if I'm in a shark cage surrounded by sharks the idea that some global probability is 0% isn't relevant. Something like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could the accident be linked to the clarity of radio instructions? I saw a discussion suggesting the DH aircraft might have been unsure about the correct runway to use, C1 or C5. From my comment in part of the discussion thread[0]: -- For the ATC, see: * https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-08... * Via: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868205-post57.html 13:13 JL516 continue approach. 14:53 la…
All of these ATC feeds are from SDR stations close by that monitor the same frequencies. Your local airport sounds better because someone has a better SDR rig to receive it. Generally the audio is crystal clear in the cockpit and on the ground — it’s just that the SDR stations don’t have as good antennae as the real systems do.
That explains it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation I think this is rarely a productive way to think about it. For example, the chance that I might die in the next year is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and actuarial tables put it somewhere around 0.3%. [1] Should I refrain from ha…
I think you're maybe missing the point. My understanding would be something like: My chances of being killed by a shark is basically 0%. But, if I'm in a shark cage surrounded by sharks the idea that some global probability is 0% isn't relevant. Something like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a 50% chance that this doctor failed probability
I recall the original context was that telling a patient to not worry because the chance of success is high isn't actually helpful, because the objective argument doesn't take into account the patient's personal perspective. I've since extrapolated that to meaning that objective measures cannot always tell or respect the whole story, because personal perspectives can bowdlerize everything down to life or death or a 5…
It's significant comfort in all those flights where no crashes occur, and for most of the time up to and during those that do end in crashes.
Anyone who really believes they are about to embark on an activity having a 0.5 probability of killing them should put their affairs in order, but then, by the same reasoning, there's a 0.5 probability of dying while doing that!
I believe the fallacy here is using an uninformative uniform prior when a much better, empirically-verified one is available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? (I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's a terrible trade off.)
And for anyone who remembers the electronics during takeoff and landing ban once cell phones became common it was a massive hassle for flight attendants as many passengers routinely ignored instructions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not against that type of argument. But do think that when a 1000 lifetimes are sliced into 5 minute chunks, those 5 minutes become less useful. It is false to equate this to loosing a 1000 lifetimes of productive effort. Like if this time is added up, it equates to killing a 1000 people. Think because airline safety is so good, that it is easy to come up with these types of large number arguments. Fallacy of Larg…
I don't think that LW post says what you think it's saying? It's coining the term "fallacy of large numbers" to apply to the situation where someone is incorrectly asserting their situation has sufficiently large numbers to apply "law of large numbers" style reasoning. I agree that 5 minutes to each of 1000 people, especially 5min on your phone on a plane, are less valuable than 5k minutes to one person. But I don't…
With a huge number, it is possible to make something look reasonable or un-reasonable. Wasting billions of hours of peoples time. Sounds bad, we should get rid of that.
But that is also the time when people should be watching the safety video. Which can impact a few lives. Like remembering where the safety doors are.
Maybe this is more along those lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_truly_large_numbers The law of truly large numbers (a statistical adage), attributed to Persi Diaconis and Frederick Mosteller, states that with a large enough number of independent samples, any highly implausible (i.e. unlikely in any single sample, but with constant probability strictly greater than 0 in any sample) result is likely to be observed.[1] Because we never find it notable when likely events occur, we highlight unlikely events and notice them more.
The law is meant to make a statement about probabilities and statistical significance: in large enough masses of statistical data, even minuscule fluctuations attain statistical significance. Thus in truly large numbers of observations, it is paradoxically easy to find significant correlations, in large numbers, which still do not lead to causal theories (see: spurious correlation), and which by their collective number,[4] might lead to obfuscation as well