5 ms·

I agree to the first point that it isn't suspicious given how dangerous motorcycle accidents are. These accidents have a staggering 80% injury or death rate.

lwhi 3y ago
Yep, the perfect way to dispatch him without raising too much suspicion.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  But it's occams razor that says its more likely to be in a wreck because he commutes on a motorcycle.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    I don't know whether commuting on a motorcycle or working for foreign intelligence to sabotage a hostile state is more dangerous. Either one can cause what looks like a typical accident.
  - noqc 3y ago
    Neither Occam's nor Hanlon's razor are to be used in strategic pursuits.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    You're applying Occam's razor for the most involved and complicated cyber attack in history, that was organized by some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world? Talk about stretching an already over stretched "rule of thumb"
  - lwhi 3y ago
    Another great angle to the perfect crime.
- xwolfi 3y ago
  But I mean, even my dad died of a motorcycle accident... maybe this dude just did too ?
croes 3y ago
Isn't the question how dangerous motorcycles are and not how dangerous motorcycle accidents? Plane crashes have a pretty high death rate too, but plane crashs are rare. What is the probability of having a motorcycle accident in Saudi Arabia.
- rgmerk 3y ago
  It was the United Arab Emirates. The odds of dying in a traffic accident in that country are considerably higher than in the United States, and much higher than in other developed countries (sorry USA, you suck at road safety, but not as much as the UAE does)[1]. While I don't have country-specific statistics to hand, the odds of dying riding a motorcycle are much, much higher than in a car. One estimate is that you are around 27 times more likely to die per distance driven/ridden [2]. Even so, in an absolute sense, the odds of dying on a typical motorcycle commute are low. My guess is that your odds of meeting foul play shortly after screwing with the Iranian nuclear program are likely higher than dying in a random traffic accident. But coincidences do occur. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... [2] https://www.autoinsurance.org/motorcycle-vs-car-accidents/ https://www.autoinsurance.org/motorcycle-vs-car-accidents/
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    Citation 1 does not support the claim that the USA "sucks at road safety" -- only a handful of the countries listed actually have a statistic for deaths per km traveled, which is the metric that matters (since the USA is much less dense than many of the countries it's being compared to, its citizens drive farther). The US is right in the middle -- doing better than the Czech Republic and South Korea -- on the metric that matters on the page you linked, but really, more data is needed because the metric you want to look at is mostly missing from the table.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      But the US designed the infra to make you go many more kilometers by car to even buy some groceries.
rdtsc 3y ago
They are especially dangerous in autocratic countries, when also co-operating with powerful intelligence agencies, trying to plant spyware in an arch-enemy's nuclear infrastructure. I hear even helmets and spine protectors have a hard time with that situation :-) But to be serious, I meant it mostly that it's certainly one case that would warrant extra investigations. Even if it was a random accident, someone like the Iranians could have claimed that their super advanced spy hunting team got him.
declaredapple 3y ago
> These accidents have a staggering 80% injury or death rate This is not the number that really matters in this context. Falling out of a 8 story window has an incredibly high injury/death rate. Yet those we often assume ARE the result of foul-play. What we're really comparing here is the probability of a party either lying, or contributing (causing) the motor cycle accident. The lethality rates aren't super interesting in this case. The main difference between this and falling out of windows, is that window-falls are much more rare then motor cycle accidents.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > Falling out of a 8 story window has an incredibly high injury/death rate. Yet those we often assume ARE the result of foul-play. Who is 'we'? Falls out of buildings are overwhelmingly due to accidents by tradespeople or suicide. Most homicides by being pushed from a height occur in remote areas, not from buildings. Most windows on high buildings are limited in how far they open during normal operation for safety reasons. And most older buildings that lack these features have smaller windows with higher sills. Statistics aren't tracked to this level by most crime reports because it is so overwhelmingly rare for someone to be killed this way. While homicidal defenestration makes for a good fictional story line, I don't think it is useful for murderers.
  - declaredapple 3y ago
    I should have specified - important/at-risk people who suddenly fall from a window, especially after they did something the country they were in doesn't like. > Statistics aren't tracked to this level by most crime reports because it is so overwhelmingly rare for someone to be killed this way. The real issue here is we aren't comparing the statistics of the "average joe". For random-person we can predict the reason for their fall was unlikely to be state-level foul play - in fact near zero chance of it. The likely hood of state-level foul play is substantially higher for spies, rich oligarchs with unpopular opinions, journalists, etc. How much higher I have no idea. --- Anyway my point was the lethality of the cause of death is really not what anyone is interested in. When spies, rich oligarchs with unpopular opinions, journalists, etc die shortly after they did something particularly provoking I don't think people care about the lethality of the incident as much as the cause.
two_in_one 3y ago
It doesn't matter how dangerous. He had years before and after to die this way. The fact that it happened right after has very low probability to be by chance. Which means it very likely wasn't.

lwhi 3y ago

Yep, the perfect way to dispatch him without raising too much suspicion.

iwontberude 3y ago
But it's occams razor that says its more likely to be in a wreck because he commutes on a motorcycle.
- mlyle 3y ago
  I don't know whether commuting on a motorcycle or working for foreign intelligence to sabotage a hostile state is more dangerous. Either one can cause what looks like a typical accident.
- noqc 3y ago
  Neither Occam's nor Hanlon's razor are to be used in strategic pursuits.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  You're applying Occam's razor for the most involved and complicated cyber attack in history, that was organized by some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world? Talk about stretching an already over stretched "rule of thumb"
- lwhi 3y ago
  Another great angle to the perfect crime.
xwolfi 3y ago
But I mean, even my dad died of a motorcycle accident... maybe this dude just did too ?

croes 3y ago

Isn't the question how dangerous motorcycles are and not how dangerous motorcycle accidents? Plane crashes have a pretty high death rate too, but plane crashs are rare. What is the probability of having a motorcycle accident in Saudi Arabia.

rgmerk 3y ago
It was the United Arab Emirates. The odds of dying in a traffic accident in that country are considerably higher than in the United States, and much higher than in other developed countries (sorry USA, you suck at road safety, but not as much as the UAE does)[1]. While I don't have country-specific statistics to hand, the odds of dying riding a motorcycle are much, much higher than in a car. One estimate is that you are around 27 times more likely to die per distance driven/ridden [2]. Even so, in an absolute sense, the odds of dying on a typical motorcycle commute are low. My guess is that your odds of meeting foul play shortly after screwing with the Iranian nuclear program are likely higher than dying in a random traffic accident. But coincidences do occur. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... [2] https://www.autoinsurance.org/motorcycle-vs-car-accidents/ https://www.autoinsurance.org/motorcycle-vs-car-accidents/
- dingnuts 3y ago
  Citation 1 does not support the claim that the USA "sucks at road safety" -- only a handful of the countries listed actually have a statistic for deaths per km traveled, which is the metric that matters (since the USA is much less dense than many of the countries it's being compared to, its citizens drive farther). The US is right in the middle -- doing better than the Czech Republic and South Korea -- on the metric that matters on the page you linked, but really, more data is needed because the metric you want to look at is mostly missing from the table.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    But the US designed the infra to make you go many more kilometers by car to even buy some groceries.

rdtsc 3y ago

They are especially dangerous in autocratic countries, when also co-operating with powerful intelligence agencies, trying to plant spyware in an arch-enemy's nuclear infrastructure. I hear even helmets and spine protectors have a hard time with that situation :-) But to be serious, I meant it mostly that it's certainly one case that would warrant extra investigations. Even if it was a random accident, someone like the Iranians could have claimed that their super advanced spy hunting team got him.

declaredapple 3y ago

> These accidents have a staggering 80% injury or death rate This is not the number that really matters in this context. Falling out of a 8 story window has an incredibly high injury/death rate. Yet those we often assume ARE the result of foul-play. What we're really comparing here is the probability of a party either lying, or contributing (causing) the motor cycle accident. The lethality rates aren't super interesting in this case. The main difference between this and falling out of windows, is that window-falls are much more rare then motor cycle accidents.

kube-system 3y ago
> Falling out of a 8 story window has an incredibly high injury/death rate. Yet those we often assume ARE the result of foul-play. Who is 'we'? Falls out of buildings are overwhelmingly due to accidents by tradespeople or suicide. Most homicides by being pushed from a height occur in remote areas, not from buildings. Most windows on high buildings are limited in how far they open during normal operation for safety reasons. And most older buildings that lack these features have smaller windows with higher sills. Statistics aren't tracked to this level by most crime reports because it is so overwhelmingly rare for someone to be killed this way. While homicidal defenestration makes for a good fictional story line, I don't think it is useful for murderers.
- declaredapple 3y ago
  I should have specified - important/at-risk people who suddenly fall from a window, especially after they did something the country they were in doesn't like. > Statistics aren't tracked to this level by most crime reports because it is so overwhelmingly rare for someone to be killed this way. The real issue here is we aren't comparing the statistics of the "average joe". For random-person we can predict the reason for their fall was unlikely to be state-level foul play - in fact near zero chance of it. The likely hood of state-level foul play is substantially higher for spies, rich oligarchs with unpopular opinions, journalists, etc. How much higher I have no idea. --- Anyway my point was the lethality of the cause of death is really not what anyone is interested in. When spies, rich oligarchs with unpopular opinions, journalists, etc die shortly after they did something particularly provoking I don't think people care about the lethality of the incident as much as the cause.

two_in_one 3y ago

It doesn't matter how dangerous. He had years before and after to die this way. The fact that it happened right after has very low probability to be by chance. Which means it very likely wasn't.