3 ms·
> I thought you were disengaging? Hmm. What do you think I meant by that? On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste
by caconym_ 5y ago
> I thought you were disengaging?
Hmm. What do you think I meant by that?
On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it.
> I'm guessing it's quite low.
Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time.
^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
- giantg2 5y agoThat's not the data I'm asking for. I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. Those numbers do not address the base risk vs enhanced risk, nor the rate at which this occurs. Please don't resort to personal attacks.
- caconym_ 5y ago> I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. If you want to understand the data and methodology behind that particular number, you should go read the paper. That's how this works. I've given you more than enough information to find it. > Please don't resort to personal attacks. I am simply calling a spade a spade. I spent far too much time here responding to your comments in good faith, when it is now clear that you will misrepresent my statements at every possible opportunity while consistently contributing nothing to the discussion yourself. If you feel that there was more value to be extracted from this discussion, I recommend that you take these "personal attacks" as constructive criticism.