3 ms·

That's the worst possible interpretation of what that comment said. - If there's a shooting 100ft from me, I don't care if it gets reported or not. I'm worried

That's the worst possible interpretation of what that comment said. - If there's a shooting 100ft from me, I don't care if it gets reported or not. I'm worried about getting in the crossfire. - On the other hand, if there's a shooting 10 miles from me, I'm safe. So it's perfectly logical to want to live in the second situation and avoid the first. Per-capita statistics mask the effects of the first and make the second look worse. The best thing to do is to use per-capita stats when judging your likelihood of being a victim, and per-area stats when judging your likelihood of being near a crime. Most people want to minimize both, and you shitting on them for it is bizarre.

etchalon 2y ago
Minimizing both is fine. But not minimizing the one that actually measures how likely you are to be a victim of a crime is … weird.
- glenngillen 2y ago
  Because as the Zendesk example that started this pointed out, an entire building (probably multiple!) of people were affected by this incident. There was 1 victim. It's going to seem insignificant on a per capita basis. There's thousands of people impacted by it, and possible dozens in the immediate vicinity who could be suffering from ongoing trauma having witnessed it.
- spiderice 2y ago
  Regardless, the whole premise that started this argument is wrong. There is higher crime per capita in large cities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
  - etchalon 2y ago
    I don't think you're reading those numbers correctly. The highest crime per capita is in Alberque, New Mexico, the 32nd largest city in the US, and that list is literally the crime rates of the 100 most populated cities, not the 100 cities in the US with the most crime.
    - smsm42 2y ago
      Which small cities, in your opinion, are more dangerous than, say, Albuquerque? How many chances, say, a high-tech professional has to regularly find oneself in such a city because his company offices are located there and they have no choice but to go there regularly?
- smsm42 2y ago
  Crime is not random lottery. It is concentrated and specific to certain places and circumstances. Thus, pretending that it is a stochastic process that is well characterized by per capita number over the whole city, and that if more people move into a bedroom community 20 miles from you, you automatically become safer because per capita numbers decreased - is innumerate at best. If you are present where the crime is concentrated, you risk is high, regardless of how many people live 20 miles from you but still in the same administrative unit. This should be obvious but some people still insist on focusing exclusively on large-area per-capita numbers.

etchalon 2y ago

Minimizing both is fine. But not minimizing the one that actually measures how likely you are to be a victim of a crime is … weird.

glenngillen 2y ago
Because as the Zendesk example that started this pointed out, an entire building (probably multiple!) of people were affected by this incident. There was 1 victim. It's going to seem insignificant on a per capita basis. There's thousands of people impacted by it, and possible dozens in the immediate vicinity who could be suffering from ongoing trauma having witnessed it.
spiderice 2y ago
Regardless, the whole premise that started this argument is wrong. There is higher crime per capita in large cities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
- etchalon 2y ago
  I don't think you're reading those numbers correctly. The highest crime per capita is in Alberque, New Mexico, the 32nd largest city in the US, and that list is literally the crime rates of the 100 most populated cities, not the 100 cities in the US with the most crime.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Which small cities, in your opinion, are more dangerous than, say, Albuquerque? How many chances, say, a high-tech professional has to regularly find oneself in such a city because his company offices are located there and they have no choice but to go there regularly?
smsm42 2y ago
Crime is not random lottery. It is concentrated and specific to certain places and circumstances. Thus, pretending that it is a stochastic process that is well characterized by per capita number over the whole city, and that if more people move into a bedroom community 20 miles from you, you automatically become safer because per capita numbers decreased - is innumerate at best. If you are present where the crime is concentrated, you risk is high, regardless of how many people live 20 miles from you but still in the same administrative unit. This should be obvious but some people still insist on focusing exclusively on large-area per-capita numbers.