4 ms·

I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily

by jefftk 3y ago

I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose policies that would lead to additional deaths, regardless of the level of inconvenience that this would impose. If you wanted to give a fermi calculation for the fraction of aircraft traveler deaths that this proposal would prevent I'd be happy to think more about this, and you might convince me. My sense that the tradeoff is not worth it is based on thinking that (a) there aren't that many deaths to be prevented and (b) banning the devices wouldn't increase the chance of survival during an evacuation by very much.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 3y ago
See, thing is, ypur oinion doesn't really matter when it comes to banning electronics during take of and landing, mine doesn't neither. Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Same as with red traffic lights and speed limits, it stops there. For what it 's worth so, I don't consider people having 20 minutes less screen time to be considered a prize to be paid, let alone one big enough to change reugulations over.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talking about. We're discussing whether it would be good for regulators to ban devices and anything else distracting during takeoff and landing.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Me too, I thought that was clear from context...
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Not sure that is exactly my point. I fly a lot. I see people using electronics for scrolling through photos, playing candy crush, browsing reddit, etc... The point is, that allowing these activities for a few more minutes during takeoff/landing, is not providing any benefit that would justify killing even 1 person, let alone hundreds. It isn't like someone is going to use that extra 5-10 minutes of using their device to cure cancer.
- jefftk 3y ago
  My guess is the number of lives saved by your proposal ("forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings") would be well under one annually, certainly below "hundreds". The total number of plane deaths is already low, and the fraction where a slightly more efficient evacuation would have made a difference is even lower. I think we may also disagree about how much it matters to subject ~4.5B people annually (the total number of passengers) to an additional ten minutes of boredom? That's something like 1,000 lifetimes each year.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I'm not against that type of argument. But do think that when a 1000 lifetimes are sliced into 5 minute chunks, those 5 minutes become less useful. It is false to equate this to loosing a 1000 lifetimes of productive effort. Like if this time is added up, it equates to killing a 1000 people. Think because airline safety is so good, that it is easy to come up with these types of large number arguments. Fallacy of Large Numbers https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R8DBQD72tajt4mDhv/the-fallacy-of-large-numbers#:~:text=The%20Law%20of%20Large%20Numbers%20states%20that%20for%20sufficiently%20large,just%20apply%20to%20expected%20values https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R8DBQD72tajt4mDhv/the-fallac....
    - jefftk 3y ago
      I don't think that LW post says what you think it's saying? It's coining the term "fallacy of large numbers" to apply to the situation where someone is incorrectly asserting their situation has sufficiently large numbers to apply "law of large numbers" style reasoning. I agree that 5 minutes to each of 1000 people, especially 5min on your phone on a plane, are less valuable than 5k minutes to one person. But I don't think they're so massively less valuable that we can ignore them as trivial!

by jefftk 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hef19898 3y ago

See, thing is, ypur oinion doesn't really matter when it comes to banning electronics during take of and landing, mine doesn't neither. Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Same as with red traffic lights and speed limits, it stops there. For what it 's worth so, I don't consider people having 20 minutes less screen time to be considered a prize to be paid, let alone one big enough to change reugulations over.

jefftk 3y ago
> Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talking about. We're discussing whether it would be good for regulators to ban devices and anything else distracting during takeoff and landing.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Me too, I thought that was clear from context...

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Not sure that is exactly my point. I fly a lot. I see people using electronics for scrolling through photos, playing candy crush, browsing reddit, etc... The point is, that allowing these activities for a few more minutes during takeoff/landing, is not providing any benefit that would justify killing even 1 person, let alone hundreds. It isn't like someone is going to use that extra 5-10 minutes of using their device to cure cancer.

jefftk 3y ago
My guess is the number of lives saved by your proposal ("forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings") would be well under one annually, certainly below "hundreds". The total number of plane deaths is already low, and the fraction where a slightly more efficient evacuation would have made a difference is even lower. I think we may also disagree about how much it matters to subject ~4.5B people annually (the total number of passengers) to an additional ten minutes of boredom? That's something like 1,000 lifetimes each year.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I'm not against that type of argument. But do think that when a 1000 lifetimes are sliced into 5 minute chunks, those 5 minutes become less useful. It is false to equate this to loosing a 1000 lifetimes of productive effort. Like if this time is added up, it equates to killing a 1000 people. Think because airline safety is so good, that it is easy to come up with these types of large number arguments. Fallacy of Large Numbers https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R8DBQD72tajt4mDhv/the-fallacy-of-large-numbers#:~:text=The%20Law%20of%20Large%20Numbers%20states%20that%20for%20sufficiently%20large,just%20apply%20to%20expected%20values https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R8DBQD72tajt4mDhv/the-fallac....
  - jefftk 3y ago
    I don't think that LW post says what you think it's saying? It's coining the term "fallacy of large numbers" to apply to the situation where someone is incorrectly asserting their situation has sufficiently large numbers to apply "law of large numbers" style reasoning. I agree that 5 minutes to each of 1000 people, especially 5min on your phone on a plane, are less valuable than 5k minutes to one person. But I don't think they're so massively less valuable that we can ignore them as trivial!