3 ms·
I'm commenting on the comment up one level from mine. They said they are for adversity but then said X and Y deaths are down. BuBut might that be from a lack o
by chiefalchemist 3y ago
I'm commenting on the comment up one level from mine.
They said they are for adversity but then said X and Y deaths are down. BuBut might that be from a lack of adversity?
(Hint: I bet it is. It makes perfect sense.)
- whstl 3y agoWe're talking about the same comment. "GP" means grandparent, in this case jtrn. I'm referring to the link in their own post [1] The text in the linked article attributes the reason for having less deaths to safety standards, etc. In fact the same link mentions that people have been traveling more by car despite the reduction, not less. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38048241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38048241
- chiefalchemist 3y agofwiw, come to think of it, deaths is a false god metric. That is, accidents can increase but medical procedures can have improved to prevent deaths. Nonetheless, in helicopter households moms and dads are certainly driving more. p.s. We've both read plenty of studies based on bad data, bad procedures, bad analysis, etc. The topic comes up weekly on HN. One study does not a law make, nor is it grounds to dismiss the obvious.
- whstl 3y agoI don't think dismissing studies and statistics prima facie just because they don't match your pet theory is a good way to go.