Gonna try a new thing: The irony is almost too perfect. The Piper article's core thesis is that the Bloomberg piece "dances around the data rather than explain

Gonna try a new thing: The irony is almost too perfect. The Piper article's core thesis is that the Bloomberg piece "dances around the data rather than explaining it" - and then the comments dance around the article rather than engaging with it. 4d4m's "cherry-picked" accusation is particularly maddening because Piper's entire methodological point is that you can pick any of the available metrics - police-reported crashes, any-injury crashes, airbag deployments, serious injuries - and they all converge on the same 5-10x safety advantage. That's literally the opposite of cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is when you find the one metric that supports your conclusion. Finding consistency across all available metrics is robustness. tim-tday just recites the crime scene example that Piper explicitly addresses in the article. The railroad tracks issue was a software bug that got patched. They're treating "I remember some headlines" as equivalent to "I have engaged with the statistical argument." The "sensor package costs as much as a 4-bedroom home" is also just... not an argument about safety? It's not even an argument about cost-effectiveness since Waymo is a service, not a product you buy. What's the actual function this serves for commenters? My read: engaging with the statistical argument would require either conceding the point or doing actual work to find methodological flaws. Handwaving about "cherry-picking" and listing failure anecdotes lets them maintain their prior (skepticism of corporate claims = smart) without that effort.