4 ms·

I am not sure if I understand what the point is you’re trying to make

by baxtr 5y ago

apendleton 5y ago
I took it to be: the original author's point was that nuclear attacks are so rare and our sample size so small that we can't use history to predict their occurrence in the future. This commenter is saying the typical way to handle situations like this is to look for more-common events that are proxies for the less-common ones in some predictable way. To give a different example of my own: on an intersection-by-intersection basis, pedestrians dying from getting hit by a car is relatively rare, so if it's perceived that a particular intersection is unsafe and the design of the intersection is modified with a goal of reducing the chance of death, it can be difficult to know if that intervention worked. Supposing last year there was one death there and this year there weren't any; was that because of the design change, or just chance? But we do know that, in aggregate, some relatively constant percentage of collisions will result in deaths, and collisions overall are much more common than deadly ones, so even if the policy goal is to reduce deaths, measuring all collisions is a very useful, less-noisy proxy for determining if an intersection has been made less deadly. So: original author is arguing that we can't meaningfully reason about these things because they're rare, and this commenter is saying "yes we can, if we find a more-common, less-noisy thing that's a good proxy for the rarer thing," and proposes that nuclear close calls are such a proxy.
- LeonB 5y ago
  Thank you, yes. As my buddy Jeeves would say “rem acu tetigisti”
- baxtr 5y ago
  Thank you, that was helpful
awb 5y ago
The author was saying we don’t have enough data to make a prediction. OC is saying we do have enough data to make reasonable assumptions if you look at high risk situations (which can reasonably be assumed to be a prerequisite to an actual disaster like death or nuclear war). For example, take two people who have never been in a car accident. Driver A gets a speeding ticket a year and a DUI every 3 years. Driver B has never had a violation. It’s reasonable to assume that Driver A is at higher risk of a future accident. We don’t have to only look at the 0 accidents data point, we can look at factors that are typically common in accidents like speed and alcohol.

I am not sure if I understand what the point is you’re trying to make

by baxtr 5y ago

I am not sure if I understand what the point is you’re trying to make

I took it to be: the original author's point was that nuclear attacks are so rare and our sample size so small that we can't use history to predict their occurrence in the future. This commenter is saying the typical way to handle situations like this is to look for more-common events that are proxies for the less-common ones in some predictable way. To give a different example of my own: on an intersection-by-intersection basis, pedestrians dying from getting hit by a car is relatively rare, so if it's perceived that a particular intersection is unsafe and the design of the intersection is modified with a goal of reducing the chance of death, it can be difficult to know if that intervention worked. Supposing last year there was one death there and this year there weren't any; was that because of the design change, or just chance? But we do know that, in aggregate, some relatively constant percentage of collisions will result in deaths, and collisions overall are much more common than deadly ones, so even if the policy goal is to reduce deaths, measuring all collisions is a very useful, less-noisy proxy for determining if an intersection has been made less deadly. So: original author is arguing that we can't meaningfully reason about these things because they're rare, and this commenter is saying "yes we can, if we find a more-common, less-noisy thing that's a good proxy for the rarer thing," and proposes that nuclear close calls are such a proxy.

LeonB 5y ago
Thank you, yes. As my buddy Jeeves would say “rem acu tetigisti”
baxtr 5y ago
Thank you, that was helpful

awb 5y ago

The author was saying we don’t have enough data to make a prediction. OC is saying we do have enough data to make reasonable assumptions if you look at high risk situations (which can reasonably be assumed to be a prerequisite to an actual disaster like death or nuclear war). For example, take two people who have never been in a car accident. Driver A gets a speeding ticket a year and a DUI every 3 years. Driver B has never had a violation. It’s reasonable to assume that Driver A is at higher risk of a future accident. We don’t have to only look at the 0 accidents data point, we can look at factors that are typically common in accidents like speed and alcohol.