3 ms·
This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The g
by Alupis 2y ago
This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait.
An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike.
The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoIf you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
- Alupis 2y agoLast I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago[flagged]
- Alupis 2y agoI asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoYou never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
- Alupis 2y agoSo you "quantify" something by presenting made up data? I can do that too. Boeing is 94848% safer - feel better? You are the challenger. Burden of evidence is on you. With that said, clearly this is an unproductive conversation... so enjoy.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoYou were the one originally implying Airbus is as dangerous as Boeing, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll take this as confirmation you have no data to support your claim. Cheers.