4 ms·
Even if so, that's a rather unsatisfying explanation, isn't it? It would be like trying to explain an increase in automotive fatalities by attributing the prob
by oasisbob 1y ago
Even if so, that's a rather unsatisfying explanation, isn't it?
It would be like trying to explain an increase in automotive fatalities by attributing the problem to all those people getting in accidents.
As the world's population grows, would you expect the threat of individual arsonists to decrease, or increase? What's the root cause on that?
- mc32 1y agoIf the accidents were caused by a bad OTA update or caused by a hacker… that’s different from the normal course of things.
- terminalshort 1y agoExplanations have no obligation to be satisfying (and the more satisfying an explanation is, the more you should question its accuracy). This is a great illustration of the problem. As the population of LA increases: 1. The number of arsonists will increase 2. The probability of a given lightning strike causing a house fire will increase (as the built up area increases) 3. The probability that a wildfire in an unpopulated area will spread to a populated area will increase 4. The potential number of houses destroyed by a single fire increases 5. The dollar value per house destroyed increases So if there were no change at all in the weather patterns, we would still expect to see an increase in fire damage over time when the population of LA increases. That's why you can't just scream "it's global warming!" when the chart goes up and to the right and weather is a contributing factor.