3 ms·
"99.99% is good enough for me" Really? Let's follow your logic. There were 639 000 000 passengers last year. Lets say one tenth follow your thinking. Multiply
by hristov 13y ago
"99.99% is good enough for me"
Really? Let's follow your logic. There were 639 000 000 passengers last year. Lets say one tenth follow your thinking. Multiply that by .0001 you get 6390 potentially deadly events of interference. Would that be ok by you?
I tell you something it would not be ok by me if I was on one of those flights.
Of course the number is probably a lot lower than 0.0001. But it is still too high. The number of recorded events of interference are too high.
What this proves is that you are obviously not equipped to make decisions that affect my life and you should not try. You should follow the rules that are obviously the result of much more informed decision making that you are showing here.
And I wonder what part of your electrical engineering coursework makes you think it is ok to keep your devices on during takeoff. You certainly should know that your device emits EM waves even if it is in "airplane mode".
- joshuak 13y agoThis is why statistics get people in trouble (and are only really useful for quantum physics and propaganda). He is measuring his certainty, you're measuring odds of interference, on top of which both are conjecture. Regardless I am quite sure that he is far better 'equipped' to decide his own certainty, just as you are yours.