4 ms·

> You can’t sample all parts and all fluids of someone’s body all the time. Maybe trace undetectable levels of the virus can be transmitted… You don’t need to

by lixtra 5y ago

> You can’t sample all parts and all fluids of someone’s body all the time. Maybe trace undetectable levels of the virus can be transmitted… You don’t need to be a 100% sure. Once the risk becomes small enough you can spend your time worrying about other risks.

jl6 5y ago
Now that may be entirely the right posture, but the triple equals signs in the post upthread did rather imply certainty.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  The standard you are applying is literally not possible to imply anywhere. Hell, an HIV viron could be created spontaneously through quantum tunneling in your body with some non-zero probability. I think it would be legitimate to triple equal signs that to "not going to happen" though.
- austhrow743 5y ago
  I took that to just be because we’re on a programmer heavy site rather than an extreme display of certainty
hashimotonomora 5y ago
Risks like these are orthogonal and additive. There’s no reason to discard any risk but to hedge them.
- tomp 5y ago
  Activity-based risks are not additive. Time spent driving is not time spent having sex (well, hopefully). So if risk(dying while driving) ~ risk(dying because of sex) ~ 0, you can easily ignore both of those.
  - dtgriscom 5y ago
    risk(dying while (driving while having sex)) >> 0...
  - hashimotonomora 5y ago
    Be careful. The infinite sum of epsilons over an infinite domain and over the time domain can and usually does converge to a finite value in real life. Also, you can avoid having sex with a HIV-positive person. You can probably not avoid driving. So the fact that a risk may be low is not sufficient to take such risk if you can hedge against it.
    - Retric 5y ago
      It is because everyone dies relatively quickly that you can ignore ultra low risks. Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be? Meanwhile doing some once a day with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of possibility killing you in 40 years just isn’t worth considering.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        > Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be? Depends what your quality lifespan is. If I get sick of everything, that time isn't worth much. There's also a "time-value" of life. Cool stuff I can do today may be worth a lot more to me than things I can do 500B years from now. Especially since the person that would be doing them is someone I cannot identify with at all.
        Retric 5y ago
        I don’t think most peoples 25 year old self can really identify what their 85 year old self will be like. Yet saving for retirement isn’t just about them some time in the future it’s about making you feel better now.
        5y ago

by lixtra 5y ago

jl6 5y ago

Now that may be entirely the right posture, but the triple equals signs in the post upthread did rather imply certainty.

whimsicalism 5y ago
The standard you are applying is literally not possible to imply anywhere. Hell, an HIV viron could be created spontaneously through quantum tunneling in your body with some non-zero probability. I think it would be legitimate to triple equal signs that to "not going to happen" though.
austhrow743 5y ago
I took that to just be because we’re on a programmer heavy site rather than an extreme display of certainty

hashimotonomora 5y ago

Risks like these are orthogonal and additive. There’s no reason to discard any risk but to hedge them.

tomp 5y ago
Activity-based risks are not additive. Time spent driving is not time spent having sex (well, hopefully). So if risk(dying while driving) ~ risk(dying because of sex) ~ 0, you can easily ignore both of those.
- dtgriscom 5y ago
  risk(dying while (driving while having sex)) >> 0...
- hashimotonomora 5y ago
  Be careful. The infinite sum of epsilons over an infinite domain and over the time domain can and usually does converge to a finite value in real life. Also, you can avoid having sex with a HIV-positive person. You can probably not avoid driving. So the fact that a risk may be low is not sufficient to take such risk if you can hedge against it.
  - Retric 5y ago
    It is because everyone dies relatively quickly that you can ignore ultra low risks. Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be? Meanwhile doing some once a day with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of possibility killing you in 40 years just isn’t worth considering.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be? Depends what your quality lifespan is. If I get sick of everything, that time isn't worth much. There's also a "time-value" of life. Cool stuff I can do today may be worth a lot more to me than things I can do 500B years from now. Especially since the person that would be doing them is someone I cannot identify with at all.
      - Retric 5y ago
        I don’t think most peoples 25 year old self can really identify what their 85 year old self will be like. Yet saving for retirement isn’t just about them some time in the future it’s about making you feel better now.
        5y ago