Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
Anything is lethal when you give it to a million people. This is the main reason I take issue with pointing out individual examples of for example autonomous vehicle crashes and treating that as an evidence for why they're inherently dangerous. Almost nothing is 100% safe. I bet there are dozens of people suffocating to their pillows each year.
Are you saying we should not have safety regulations just because we can't make everything 100% safe?
Remember, if something can't be 100% improved, all improvement is worthless!
Nothing is ever 100% safe. Risk assessment is a big part of federal regulations. (See refs at JSTOR and NCBI) One of the key questions is what is the cost/benefit balance for a product. Kitchen knives are hazardous, but it's very hard to cook without them, so they balance heavier on the benefit side despite the risks. Radithor is all risk and no benefit, so it was an easy decision to ban it.
The point ContrarianTrail was making is that there is some risk in nearly everything. People have died as a result of garden tools, cars, house pets, shaving, buckets, toothpicks, baseball, etc. Here's a list. The part he left out is the cost/benefit analysis. I prefer pull cords on my blinds, and I find the new regulations annoying. But I guess some federal agency decided they aren't so useful that it's worth the risk to children. And it would be selfish to be all upset about it if it saves some child's life.
I was giving them the chance to clarify their point, because they didn't say anything beyond "nothing is safe" as a justification for poo-pooing an attempt to improve safety. Hence the question, which they have so far declined to answer themselves.
Yes, we all know "nothing is safe". it's a trivial point to make, and if that's the only part of the situation you mention (as the person above did) you're either not thinking very hard or are being deliberately misleading.
Exactly, it's not that hard to understand. Pull-cord blinds cause deaths, and other reasonable alternatives do not. Framing the discussion to "100%" and dismissing accidents/deaths as anecdotes, to me, seems deliberately misleading. Yet you accuse me of being inflammatory by asking a follow up question. okay.
So by your logic if a collision from bicycle or even from people running isn't 100% safe, then it's as dangerous as car?
More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they're safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.
contextualize how?
Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you'll see that bike-car collisions aren't that bad.
The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.
so by your logic since nothing is as bad as [choose any cause of death], we should just... give up on improving safety?
Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?
I legitimately don't understand your question. If you're asking if the cost to improve safety may be too great in some cases, yes that is true in some cases. But you haven't made that case in this specific instance yet.
Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.
But for me to have made that argument, I'd have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that's true:
But I sucked at wording it clearly. That's on me.
In short, no, I'm not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I'm not making an argument either way.
Nope.
Username checks out. If they weren't so awful, maybe people would care about defending them, but there's just all-around awful. They're uglier, harder to use, and seem to frequently get damaged (probably mostly from people trying to fight with them or just bending them out of the way because damaging them is worth it to avoid dealing with them...
There's always roller blinds for the ones among us to whom mini blinds are too difficult to use.
Is it that they're "too difficult to use" or is it just that they're a pain in the ass? Because it's the latter in my experience.
In my experience, one begets the other.
It's a pain in the ass because its difficult to use. Or, at least more difficult than it needs to be.
Yeah, but they also break really easily, and then you have the fun of either trying to get the string fixed or back on the track or whatever or just replacing the whole thing.