5 ms·
Because it's safer to have a chemical weapons early-warning system that goes off too often rather than too little? The cost of a false negative when lives are
by rtpg 10y ago
Because it's safer to have a chemical weapons early-warning system that goes off too often rather than too little?
The cost of a false negative when lives are at stake are worth noisy alarms (smoke detectors).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pdkl95 10y agoWhen exceptional signals become normalized from too many false positives, people start ignoring alarms.
- noxToken 10y agoI wonder if there are exceptions to this rule in war zones where one's life is at stake. Anecdote: Yes, errant gun fire and far off explosions stopped making the hair on the back of our neck stand up during deployment, but we always waited for the controlled detonation signal or confirmation if the area where small arms fire was happening. It's possible that my perspective didn't match the general sentiment of the unit. It still seemed like there wasn't much complacency. And one of the times where the explosions weren't controlled detonations, the reaction force was mounted and moving to location in the standard allotted time.
- amirhirsch 10y agoIn Israel when we hear the color red alarm some people run outside to watch iron dome shoot down the missile.
- weaksauce 10y agoHow well does the iron dome work? I assume it works pretty well if it's a spectacle.
- alfiedotwtf 10y agoNote these siren went off because they "detected" chemical weapons in the air. Why aren't they still be going off today - because they weren't detectors, it was someone pressing a button at random times for PSYOPS