3 ms·

>Bruh, if you're gonna make statements like this, your argument needs to be stellar to back it up. Well, for starters, did you actually look into the studies y

by bumby 3y ago

>Bruh, if you're gonna make statements like this, your argument needs to be stellar to back it up. Well, for starters, did you actually look into the studies you cited or did you just take the first parts that confirmed your bias? For instance, the study that claimed European cars are safer in front/side crash tests admitted that the distribution of safety differences contains zero. It's important to understand the limitations of null-hypothesis testing. This means you can't discount that there is no actual difference between safety. This is why data literacy is important rather than just reading the abstract or conclusion and running with it. >The US rural population is tiny, it's less than 20% Again, this belies ignorance. Did you just grab the first Google result that confirmed your stance, or did you actually take time to understand the nuance? There is a massive disparity between what the census defines as rural vs. what is colloquially understood as rural. The census considers any population over 2500 people as an "urban cluster". That means US urban areas range from 2500-19.5MM. With that level of variance, you have to acknowledge large variance of “normal” use cases. >Your focus on safety as the root cause is also pretty dumb Please point to where I said it's the "root cause." I've only been advocating a more nuanced perspective. Also, see the HN guidelines for appropriate comments. >Please provide your sources The average round-trip commute as 55.2 minutes according to the US census and over 40 miles. Maybe you misspoke when you said "20 miles per day" and meant one-way? >Yes it is indeed. No, it's misguided and lacking nuance at best. Have you ever driven in southern California during rush hour? Your average speed is easily 30mph or less because you are essentially in a parking lot for huge periods. But that doesn't negate the need for a car to be able to reach highway speeds. Remember, the context was about safety of cars that are capped at 50km/hr, but now you're moving the goalposts and acknowledging the need for faster speeds just to maintain your position. It's pretty clear you have your mind made up and prefer to argue rather than have a substantive and nuanced conversation.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> Also, see the HN guidelines for appropriate comments. Coming from the author of “you’re speaking from a place of ignorance” (+ other variations), I can only hope you're trolling at this point. > This means you can't discount that there is no actual difference between safety. This is why data literacy is important rather than just reading the abstract or conclusion and running with it. Given that the argument being refuted was “US cars are safer” the “no actual difference” case still counts as a refutation. How good is data literacy if you lack logical reasoning abilities… > The census considers any population over 2500 people as an "urban cluster" In an area were more than 2500 people live you'll most likely have actual roads and bridges, and don't need a truck to cross rivers or to drive on unpaved roads, so the definition is pretty much on point when we're talking about cars! And then 71% of the US population live in urban areas of more than 50k inhabitants so the smallest urban areas are in fact a small fraction of the total urban population (Edit: In any case, urban population living in areas with less than 10k is just 7M[1] so it's not these 2% of the US pop who make the car market either…). But yeah, I'm the one suffering from confirmation bias… > Please point to where I said it's the "root cause." Sure, here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37674080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37674080 you're welcome. > But that doesn't negate the need for a car to be able to reach highway speeds. Sure, one car able to go to highway speed for vacations and all. But must households don't need two of such cars! > Remember, the context was about safety of cars that are capped at 50km/hr, but now you're moving the goalposts and acknowledging the need for faster speeds just to maintain your position. Nope, the context is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37658823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37658823 and I'm talking about both the Ami and the Sandero. > It's pretty clear you have your mind made up and prefer to argue rather than have a substantive and nuanced conversation. Cause you don't lack nuance at all ;). [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28286/2020-census-qualifying-urban-areas-and-final-criteria-clarifications https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28...
- bumby 3y ago
  Saying someone is ignorant is not saying someone is dumb. Ignorance can be remedied with information, being dumb cannot. One is meant as a personal indictment of intelligence, the other is just saying you may not have the right perspective. If you took personal slight from the phrasing, it wasn’t intended. There is no root cause claim there so you’re not saying much, other than strawmanning. If you look at a modern economy car, it weighs more than economy cars of the past or non-approved models for the US, despite using lighter weight materials for comparable components. So where does the extra weight come from? Mandatory safety features and options. That’s all the “disproportionate” statement is saying. It also wasn’t a comment to you, so a bit cringey that you try to search for any weak handhold to make your point. You also picked a different comment to illustrate the context rather than your actual post, so I’m not sure your point. But it certainly lends credence to the idea of you moving the goalposts just to avoid being wrong. I’ll give you more perspective since you missed the point. If the data contains zero it means it ranges from saying the US cars are safer to saying they are less safe. Zero is contained because it’s within this range. In other words, you can’t make strong claims at all. Again, data literacy is important.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Saying a comment is dumb isn't saying you are dumb. If you took personal slight from the phrasing, it wasn’t intended… not. And you know this argument is BS, you infringed the rules about civil discourse first, but now you're trying to use them so you gotta try something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. > If you look at a modern economy car, it weighs more than economy cars of the past or non-approved models for the US, despite using lighter weight materials for comparable components. So where does the extra weight come from? Ah yes, because your old car also had AC, electric window, and all the comfort a modern car has (including the car's form factor, giving more room for arms and legs, and less effort to get out of the car), and then the only difference must be safety… > You also picked a different comment to illustrate the context rather than your actual post Yes I took an adjacent comment in the same thread that you posted 5 minutes before your response to mine. So that must count as a completely different context, right? No, and you know it as well. > If the data contains zero it means it ranges from saying the US cars are safer to saying they are less safe. Zero is contained because it’s within this range. In other words, you can’t make strong claims at all. Of course you can make strong claims, and you're even making a strong claim yourself right now! The claim I make (which is ironically the same as the one you're making right now) is that the study shows that you can't make a strong claim about the US safety being higher than the one in the EU. Which was your argument!

by bumby 3y ago

littlestymaar 3y ago

> Also, see the HN guidelines for appropriate comments. Coming from the author of “you’re speaking from a place of ignorance” (+ other variations), I can only hope you're trolling at this point. > This means you can't discount that there is no actual difference between safety. This is why data literacy is important rather than just reading the abstract or conclusion and running with it. Given that the argument being refuted was “US cars are safer” the “no actual difference” case still counts as a refutation. How good is data literacy if you lack logical reasoning abilities… > The census considers any population over 2500 people as an "urban cluster" In an area were more than 2500 people live you'll most likely have actual roads and bridges, and don't need a truck to cross rivers or to drive on unpaved roads, so the definition is pretty much on point when we're talking about cars! And then 71% of the US population live in urban areas of more than 50k inhabitants so the smallest urban areas are in fact a small fraction of the total urban population (Edit: In any case, urban population living in areas with less than 10k is just 7M[1] so it's not these 2% of the US pop who make the car market either…). But yeah, I'm the one suffering from confirmation bias… > Please point to where I said it's the "root cause." Sure, here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37674080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37674080 you're welcome. > But that doesn't negate the need for a car to be able to reach highway speeds. Sure, one car able to go to highway speed for vacations and all. But must households don't need two of such cars! > Remember, the context was about safety of cars that are capped at 50km/hr, but now you're moving the goalposts and acknowledging the need for faster speeds just to maintain your position. Nope, the context is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37658823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37658823 and I'm talking about both the Ami and the Sandero. > It's pretty clear you have your mind made up and prefer to argue rather than have a substantive and nuanced conversation. Cause you don't lack nuance at all ;). [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28286/2020-census-qualifying-urban-areas-and-final-criteria-clarifications https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28...

bumby 3y ago
Saying someone is ignorant is not saying someone is dumb. Ignorance can be remedied with information, being dumb cannot. One is meant as a personal indictment of intelligence, the other is just saying you may not have the right perspective. If you took personal slight from the phrasing, it wasn’t intended. There is no root cause claim there so you’re not saying much, other than strawmanning. If you look at a modern economy car, it weighs more than economy cars of the past or non-approved models for the US, despite using lighter weight materials for comparable components. So where does the extra weight come from? Mandatory safety features and options. That’s all the “disproportionate” statement is saying. It also wasn’t a comment to you, so a bit cringey that you try to search for any weak handhold to make your point. You also picked a different comment to illustrate the context rather than your actual post, so I’m not sure your point. But it certainly lends credence to the idea of you moving the goalposts just to avoid being wrong. I’ll give you more perspective since you missed the point. If the data contains zero it means it ranges from saying the US cars are safer to saying they are less safe. Zero is contained because it’s within this range. In other words, you can’t make strong claims at all. Again, data literacy is important.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Saying a comment is dumb isn't saying you are dumb. If you took personal slight from the phrasing, it wasn’t intended… not. And you know this argument is BS, you infringed the rules about civil discourse first, but now you're trying to use them so you gotta try something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. > If you look at a modern economy car, it weighs more than economy cars of the past or non-approved models for the US, despite using lighter weight materials for comparable components. So where does the extra weight come from? Ah yes, because your old car also had AC, electric window, and all the comfort a modern car has (including the car's form factor, giving more room for arms and legs, and less effort to get out of the car), and then the only difference must be safety… > You also picked a different comment to illustrate the context rather than your actual post Yes I took an adjacent comment in the same thread that you posted 5 minutes before your response to mine. So that must count as a completely different context, right? No, and you know it as well. > If the data contains zero it means it ranges from saying the US cars are safer to saying they are less safe. Zero is contained because it’s within this range. In other words, you can’t make strong claims at all. Of course you can make strong claims, and you're even making a strong claim yourself right now! The claim I make (which is ironically the same as the one you're making right now) is that the study shows that you can't make a strong claim about the US safety being higher than the one in the EU. Which was your argument!