5 ms·

When I walk in a city I don't spend my time constantly scanning the sky and every building around me for a potential falling object. Or research the structural

When I walk in a city I don't spend my time constantly scanning the sky and every building around me for a potential falling object. Or research the structural history of every bridge I drive over then spend hours avoiding certain ones. Or a hundred other rare things that do kill people but statistically not often. Everyone dies one day and everyone has a single life. I don't see the point of spending that one life in constant fear of the end that cannot be avoided anyways without even meaningfully changing the timeline of that end.

onlyonhn2 2y ago
Agree. Has anyone died at Emirates A380 bar or Qatar minibar? Nope. I'll take my chances just as I do in thousands of scenarios a day that I just dont care to register.. This seems like a guy that when pair programming on someone else's keyboard uses gloves - we've all met them...
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  If you don't understand risk mitigation, or think it's someone else's job - even when, in the case of turbulence the professionals are telling you there is absolutely nothing they can do about it - then eventually you're just going to end up getting injured or killed by something that could be avoided. Yes, death by turbulence is rare, but there are dozens of serious injuries a year caused by turbulence in US air space alone. Hundreds a year, globally. We're not talking about a small graze or cut, we're talking head injuries, broken bones, life changing injuries. Costs US airlines half a billion dollars a year dealing with it in terms of payouts and maintenance costs. Why you think that doesn't apply to you is a strange take to me, but you do you.
  - denkmoon 2y ago
    Accepting risk and believing it doesn’t apply to you are two vastly different things. I take it you don’t fly? How about driving? There is assumedly some line you draw for acceptable vs unacceptable risk I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here or what you’re suggesting we should do
    - pennomi 2y ago
      It’s a cost-benefit relationship. Since wearing a seatbelt is such a minor inconvenience (you’re already sitting in that seat), it’s an obvious thing to do even though the risk is exceedingly rare. In a hypothetical case where a seatbelt cost an extra $100 to use, then the cost would probably not be worth the benefit.
    - bergen 2y ago
      Use a seatbelt most of the time in a plane is his suggestion, which really isn't hidden. I for one take the suggestion and will do so, because there is no inconvience, but the OP clearly stated that you're supposed make your own decisions.
  - loopdoend 2y ago
    Because dozens out of hundreds of millions of passengers is a risk they're willing to take, I guess.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  Other people’s keyboards are most of the time borderline disgusting so I can sympathise with _that guy_ to some extent
corobo 2y ago
A bird shat on my head like 10 years ago and I look up at everything now. Street lights, overhangs, anything a bastard pigeon could be sitting on. I don't fear death, for I will be dead. I fear unexpected inconvenience
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  If anything, getting shat on would make me avoid looking up for some time
  - corobo 2y ago
    Look up in advance rather than directly under, haha. Strains the neck less too
- portaouflop 2y ago
  I just want to be reborn as a bird to do exactly this all day
PaulRobinson 2y ago
Do you look both ways when crossing the road? There are reasonable measures those around you can take to ensure that falling objects don't crash into you from the sky, or that the bridge you're on does not collapse as you're driving over it. The risk is mitigated by reducing likelihood and impact. There is nothing a pilot can do to avoid an air pocket. There is little mitigation possible.
- marcinzm 2y ago
  But then it's not about safety. It's about your need to feel in control of the situation even if the control is an illusion. That is fair in a way but saying it's a safety thing or that people are crazy for not needing to feel in control all the time isn't fair. Or even calling them crazy for not doing the same ultimately meaningless actions as you to create an illusion of control for themselves
  - PaulRobinson 2y ago
    No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work all day? (never know when a ceiling tile could fall down) Would your opinion change following this hypothetical media blitz? Would you hop on the bandwagon and decry the irresponsibility of the anti-helmet folks? If you think about this for a second before hitting that downwards pointing triangle, does this dumb example mean that it's actually more about what's socially acceptable than actual safety? Why would you feel dumb wearing a helmet all day now, and dumb for not wearing it in that world?
davidmurdoch 2y ago
We are all playing a giant game with no real winners called "Don't Die". Few play it actively, most just try to avoid too much pain before they reach the end, and others play it a bit like Russian Roulette.
lm28469 2y ago
Do you use a seat belt when you drive?
jna_sh 2y ago
Why do you perceive wearing a seatbelt on a flight and minimising time out of a seat as such a high cost/inconvenience? I hear this line of thought a lot, particularly nowadays around masking to avoid COVID, and I’m always intrigued by this idea that avoiding this tiny act that barely impacts you is somehow sticking a big middle finger up to fear
- portaouflop 2y ago
  If humans beings were perfectly rational at all times everywhere then the world would look a lot different (and much less exciting I presume)
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    If human beings were even marginally rational most of the time it would look a lot different!
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      Solid. Fear and greed drive markets - Anon. And humans - Me.
- marcinzm 2y ago
  Because there's millions of those tiny acts and I doubt you've read the risk analysis of each one to decide which fifty thousand to follow. But if you actually do consider them rationally and act on them then cool. Most people who say what you do however don't but rather act based on an irrational perception of risks usually due to things like media attention or misclassifying lack of control as risk. I've met people who actually and rationally consider all the potential risks and I respect them. It's also an exhausting life to lead from my observation.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  To be honest, time out of seat is a deliberate choice. My legs are long, and the seats are tiny! I do wear a seatbelt when in seat, though more out of fear than expectation something like that will ever happen. It just seems like an incredibly stupid way to die, and mitigating it costs me nothing.
zzzeek 2y ago
do you walk around outside and hang out under lone trees in thunderstorms?
MrMan 2y ago
[dead]
LeifCarrotson 2y ago
It's not "constant fear" to just leave the seatbelt buckled. It literally requires less thought and effort to just leave it buckled, because you'll inevitably be re-buckling it when the plane encounters turbulence or lands. Using PPE is not about living in fear, it's about taking appropriate precautions.
- marcinzm 2y ago
  Did you read what OP wrote? It's not mostly about wearing your seatbelt when seated but mostly about never ever ever leaving your seat. That's the constant fear part.
  - PaulRobinson 2y ago
    That isn't what I said.
Aurornis 2y ago
> When I walk in a city I don't spend my time constantly scanning the sky and every building around me for a potential falling object. Or research the structural history of every bridge I drive over then spend hours avoiding certain ones. Of course not, because all of those scenarios are extremely high effort for low reward. Wearing a seatbelt on an airplane is very low effort and takes a few seconds at most. Your examples are in no way comparable to putting on a seatbelt. This is the type of fallacious thinking that gets people in trouble: Instead of discussing the issue at hand, they try to substitute a ridiculous, exaggerated alternative scenario and argue against that instead. You don't have to look very deep to see why your example scenarios, which take enormous amounts of time and effort, are pure strawman arguments in the context of a simple discussion about seatbelts. There's a second fallacy wherein people try to argue an "all or nothing" perspective: They list out exaggerated things that they can't/won't do (like looking in the sky all the time) and then try to make the claim that because they can't do all of those exaggerated things, they shouldn't be expected to do any safety-related thing. It's another fallacious argument tactic.

onlyonhn2 2y ago

Agree. Has anyone died at Emirates A380 bar or Qatar minibar? Nope. I'll take my chances just as I do in thousands of scenarios a day that I just dont care to register.. This seems like a guy that when pair programming on someone else's keyboard uses gloves - we've all met them...

PaulRobinson 2y ago
If you don't understand risk mitigation, or think it's someone else's job - even when, in the case of turbulence the professionals are telling you there is absolutely nothing they can do about it - then eventually you're just going to end up getting injured or killed by something that could be avoided. Yes, death by turbulence is rare, but there are dozens of serious injuries a year caused by turbulence in US air space alone. Hundreds a year, globally. We're not talking about a small graze or cut, we're talking head injuries, broken bones, life changing injuries. Costs US airlines half a billion dollars a year dealing with it in terms of payouts and maintenance costs. Why you think that doesn't apply to you is a strange take to me, but you do you.
- denkmoon 2y ago
  Accepting risk and believing it doesn’t apply to you are two vastly different things. I take it you don’t fly? How about driving? There is assumedly some line you draw for acceptable vs unacceptable risk I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here or what you’re suggesting we should do
  - pennomi 2y ago
    It’s a cost-benefit relationship. Since wearing a seatbelt is such a minor inconvenience (you’re already sitting in that seat), it’s an obvious thing to do even though the risk is exceedingly rare. In a hypothetical case where a seatbelt cost an extra $100 to use, then the cost would probably not be worth the benefit.
  - bergen 2y ago
    Use a seatbelt most of the time in a plane is his suggestion, which really isn't hidden. I for one take the suggestion and will do so, because there is no inconvience, but the OP clearly stated that you're supposed make your own decisions.
- loopdoend 2y ago
  Because dozens out of hundreds of millions of passengers is a risk they're willing to take, I guess.
portaouflop 2y ago
Other people’s keyboards are most of the time borderline disgusting so I can sympathise with _that guy_ to some extent

corobo 2y ago

A bird shat on my head like 10 years ago and I look up at everything now. Street lights, overhangs, anything a bastard pigeon could be sitting on. I don't fear death, for I will be dead. I fear unexpected inconvenience

dkdbejwi383 2y ago
If anything, getting shat on would make me avoid looking up for some time
- corobo 2y ago
  Look up in advance rather than directly under, haha. Strains the neck less too
portaouflop 2y ago
I just want to be reborn as a bird to do exactly this all day

PaulRobinson 2y ago

Do you look both ways when crossing the road? There are reasonable measures those around you can take to ensure that falling objects don't crash into you from the sky, or that the bridge you're on does not collapse as you're driving over it. The risk is mitigated by reducing likelihood and impact. There is nothing a pilot can do to avoid an air pocket. There is little mitigation possible.

marcinzm 2y ago
But then it's not about safety. It's about your need to feel in control of the situation even if the control is an illusion. That is fair in a way but saying it's a safety thing or that people are crazy for not needing to feel in control all the time isn't fair. Or even calling them crazy for not doing the same ultimately meaningless actions as you to create an illusion of control for themselves
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  No, I'm talking about risk mitigation, not control.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    So let's say the media started a campaign promoting wearing a helmet all the time. The anti-helmet people would be painted as reckless, feckless, and generally deplorable. All the celebrities would endorse wearing a helmet at all times. There would be New York Times editorials about "those people". Questions: Is this still about risk mitigation? If yes, are you at risk now? Why don't you wear your bike helmet at work all day? (never know when a ceiling tile could fall down) Would your opinion change following this hypothetical media blitz? Would you hop on the bandwagon and decry the irresponsibility of the anti-helmet folks? If you think about this for a second before hitting that downwards pointing triangle, does this dumb example mean that it's actually more about what's socially acceptable than actual safety? Why would you feel dumb wearing a helmet all day now, and dumb for not wearing it in that world?

davidmurdoch 2y ago

We are all playing a giant game with no real winners called "Don't Die". Few play it actively, most just try to avoid too much pain before they reach the end, and others play it a bit like Russian Roulette.

lm28469 2y ago

Do you use a seat belt when you drive?

jna_sh 2y ago

Why do you perceive wearing a seatbelt on a flight and minimising time out of a seat as such a high cost/inconvenience? I hear this line of thought a lot, particularly nowadays around masking to avoid COVID, and I’m always intrigued by this idea that avoiding this tiny act that barely impacts you is somehow sticking a big middle finger up to fear

portaouflop 2y ago
If humans beings were perfectly rational at all times everywhere then the world would look a lot different (and much less exciting I presume)
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  If human beings were even marginally rational most of the time it would look a lot different!
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    Solid. Fear and greed drive markets - Anon. And humans - Me.
marcinzm 2y ago
Because there's millions of those tiny acts and I doubt you've read the risk analysis of each one to decide which fifty thousand to follow. But if you actually do consider them rationally and act on them then cool. Most people who say what you do however don't but rather act based on an irrational perception of risks usually due to things like media attention or misclassifying lack of control as risk. I've met people who actually and rationally consider all the potential risks and I respect them. It's also an exhausting life to lead from my observation.
Aeolun 2y ago
To be honest, time out of seat is a deliberate choice. My legs are long, and the seats are tiny! I do wear a seatbelt when in seat, though more out of fear than expectation something like that will ever happen. It just seems like an incredibly stupid way to die, and mitigating it costs me nothing.

zzzeek 2y ago

do you walk around outside and hang out under lone trees in thunderstorms?

MrMan 2y ago

[dead]

LeifCarrotson 2y ago

It's not "constant fear" to just leave the seatbelt buckled. It literally requires less thought and effort to just leave it buckled, because you'll inevitably be re-buckling it when the plane encounters turbulence or lands. Using PPE is not about living in fear, it's about taking appropriate precautions.

marcinzm 2y ago
Did you read what OP wrote? It's not mostly about wearing your seatbelt when seated but mostly about never ever ever leaving your seat. That's the constant fear part.
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  That isn't what I said.

Aurornis 2y ago

> When I walk in a city I don't spend my time constantly scanning the sky and every building around me for a potential falling object. Or research the structural history of every bridge I drive over then spend hours avoiding certain ones. Of course not, because all of those scenarios are extremely high effort for low reward. Wearing a seatbelt on an airplane is very low effort and takes a few seconds at most. Your examples are in no way comparable to putting on a seatbelt. This is the type of fallacious thinking that gets people in trouble: Instead of discussing the issue at hand, they try to substitute a ridiculous, exaggerated alternative scenario and argue against that instead. You don't have to look very deep to see why your example scenarios, which take enormous amounts of time and effort, are pure strawman arguments in the context of a simple discussion about seatbelts. There's a second fallacy wherein people try to argue an "all or nothing" perspective: They list out exaggerated things that they can't/won't do (like looking in the sky all the time) and then try to make the claim that because they can't do all of those exaggerated things, they shouldn't be expected to do any safety-related thing. It's another fallacious argument tactic.