assume you're aware most are reacting to claiming driving is not dangerous, not the logic of Fermi per se. If you did guns, it'd be 10x worse. If you did something without personal valence to most people, say hang gliding, most would be fine.
Apparently, Twitter is quite offended by Fermi estimates, i.e quick back-of-the-envelope calculations intended to get within a crude ballpark. Woe be to he who posts an estimate that doesn't take into account all known relevant effects!https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1161360658224390144 …
-
-
-
I said driving is not "that* dangerous, i.e., not out of line relative to the average of other activities.
-
I’m commenting on how people emotionally intuitively parse your what your words might have meant. Not what your words logically asked. Which is clear. Though not the intuition most people unthinkingly and automatically invoked in their mind.
-
Yes, sadly how it often works.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But then it’s no longer an estimate!
-
Yes, but still, that's the high standards of Twitter. Just as with the impeccable logic always displayed here ...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Robin, the implication that we can save 3/4 of all deaths by driving 24/7 doesn't pass the smell test. People are thrashing looking for why. Do you have any ideas what is wrong with your clever but questionable observation? Do you agree something is wrong with it?
-
As I've said many times, it was a crude Fermi estimate. There are lots of obvious corrections to make to it, but it does get us in the ballpark, which was my only purpose.
-
The ballpark of *what*? Again, the statistics aren't "crude", inaccurate, or imprecise; they just don't actually mean anything, because you are comparing numbers that are essentially unrelated.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
because 1) fermi estimates are good for order of magnitude, you can't use them to say 1.4% fermi < 3.5% fermi 2) You are ignoring the additive nature of some of these risks. Driving around all day won't make you less likely to die of cancer or heart disease.
-
1) i didn't say that 2) Fermi estimates always miss things
-
1)You were certainly suggesting these things. 2) It's a matter of measuring the wrong thing, not measuring the right thing with some error.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
People weren't "offended". They just saw that you made an estimate that was obviously and terribly wrong, and told you so. You ignored the overwhelming majority of deaths that are not attributed to a single moment. This is not a small oversight, it undermines your entire claim.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The reason it's a bad back of the envelope calc is that it implies driving is relatively low-danger vs other activities. But most time spent on school/work/sleep/TV/phone/PC - vastly lower mortality than driving. Driving's actually super dangerous compared to most things we do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean it’s kind of a big deal if you leave out the BIGGEST relevant effect, which is that most people die when they’re old. If you exclude the elderly that 1.4% starts climbing STEEPLY. If you want to advocate for life extension, etc. then sure, but that’s not what you did.
-
(4.2% globally, 14% in US roughly. Didn’t get a very high quality source but I think 2/3 of deaths globally and 9/10 in developed countries being old age sounds mostly reasonable.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.