This is the real explanation. Huang’s behavior has cost other rich people money. Trump’s behavior has not. Simple

True but what really matters in this case is how often the people who weren’t at fault die, and how often the people who were at fault die. I haven’t seen as clear of data on that

I used to think that, too. But lately, I’ve started to consider that even more people are even worse drivers than I thought. And I think that really changes things.

Also, that common airplane statistic about deaths is usually reported in terms of passenger miles, which I think is a little misleading since airplanes intrinsically travel many more miles. It would be more meaningful to measure deaths per trip or better yet deaths per passenger hour rather than miles. However, I did find some lawyer websites saying that the lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are around 1 in 800,000,000 versus 1 in 95 for cars.

Now I know it seems deranged on the face of it, but hear me out.

For driving to be as safe as flying, we would need someone to be about 8500 times less likely to die over the course of their life driving. Most people drive 5 days a week, for about 50 years, so 13000 days driving. So:

The odds of surviving a day of safe driving= S

Odds of surviving a day of dangerous driving= D

8500=S^13000 / D^13000 = (S/D)^13000

S/D = 8500^(1/13000) = 1.0007

So if driving safer on day made you even 0.07% more likely to survive that day, then that gives us that 8500x increase over a lifetime.

Now…I know this is based on that 1/95 which ALREADY includes the safe drivers. So the legitimacy of this estimate depends on how many drivers you think are safe. This is why my estimate of that ratio caused me to change my mind. I feel like only around 15% of people drive at that level of safety. So, of course, in some sense this still means that driving in general is more dangerous because you have an 85% chance of being one of the people for whom it is more dangerous. But I still think there’s something to be said for the minority of truly cautious and defensive drivers.

Acknowledging other failure points here, most airplane deaths are in private aviation, so that may make the bar harder to clear again. But I think the whole 13000 days estimate demonstrates how even tiny improvements there can easily account for large changes, too.

Respect to both you and your friend for being logically consistent just at different risk thresholds.

However, I will add that it’s not certain whether the risk level of driving is equal for good or bad drivers. It’s not exactly an illusion of control. You really do have more control. If it were somehow possible to reliably separate people who died in a car into groups of people that were driving responsibly versus not driving responsibly, I don’t know if that would look as dangerous as an airplane or not… But it seems fair to estimate that it wouldn’t be.

Yeah, but realistically these companies just pull new versions to overcome CVE blockers, and don’t have the resources to fork and maintain

How specific can licenses really get? Would it be possible to update the license on a version update of an existing library to for instance specifically forbid Fortune 1000 companies from using it, but everyone else can? It would be amazing to see these places get their tech stacks ripped out from under them, although of course many would just illegally use the code and never tell

Mass surveillance, which is why it’s misguided for anyone to be happy about this

Who clapped? And what does clapped mean?

Bro is not cooking with these comments

None of them will need to cut deals and they’ll stay right where they are, that’s my bet. Hope I end up wrong

Rat, plant, shill, etc. Plainer than ever now

That one is really easy to do, its the best out of many I tried. But yeah that’s fair, I get it from the standpoint of archiving. That extra data could be used for remastering/mixing/sampling purposes potentially

Have you done an ABX test? I love and produce music and have a good ear, and even though its embarrassing to admit, I don’t hear a difference. Honestly I suspect very few people can. https://abx.digitalfeed.net/

Linux users in their natural habitat, obscure online forums.

Observe how they nitpick minor technicalities between themselves, a hallmark sign of affection among their kind.

The comments on the site being 90% people saying the whole story is fake really takes the cake… Fuck this society oh my god

“Guilfoyle is also the former wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom and ex-fiancé of Donald Trump Jr.”

One big happy family lol

Yeah I think most people get their beliefs as a package deal. For them its “either you’re XYZ or you’re not XYZ”. There’s no cognitive nuance to understand that someone might assert X but not Y or Z, etc. And so when someone comes along saying “I’m a Not-X” they suddenly go “oh, so you’re a Not-Z then too huh???”

I actually already knew that, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why that has any bearing on the claim “Even if the House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will not be hell to pay with the base”?

“If House Democrats don’t use every tool at their disposal to name names, kick ass, and stop further destruction, there will be hell to pay with the base.”

From the article.

I am saying:

" Even if the House Democrats do none of those things, there will not be hell to pay with the base"

The reason I say this is because, even if they do none of those things, they will still constitute the lesser of two evils for all future elections. That fact, coupled with the base’s strong conviction to vote for the lesser evil, means the House Democrats will not have “hell to pay” with the base.

Crazy how people assume I’m not just because I say there won’t be hell to pay for the dems if they don’t kick ass, etc