A rough estimate for global life expectancy. It's actually slightly over 73, so the chances of dying in a car accident are marginally higher than I said.
The data I used wasn't related to driving frequency or age, it was purely the number of people in a random global sample of 100,000 people you would expect to die in a car accident in a given year. That of course includes people of all ages and people who never drive at all, but also taxi & HGV drivers. Even if we say people aren't in cars so much under the age of 5 or over the age of 60, that would push up the deaths per 100,000 people per year between 5 and 60 by the exact amount to keep the chance per year over a human lifetime at 17.4/100000.
In reality, car crashes aren’t accidents and 94% are due to human error
In 2011, British police officers attended 118,404 road traffic collisions (figures from the Department of Transport). In 42% of these crashes, the most frequently reported factor was that the driver ‘failed to look properly’. The second most commonly listed factor for 21% of the crashes was the driver ‘failing to judge the other person’s path or speed’. The third most common contributing factor was the driver being actually ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and this accounted for 16% of the crashes.
There's your stats on humans being reckless and dangerous when driving cars, and of course there's nothing concrete for fully autonomous cars because they aren't legal anywhere, but here's some stats on pretty much every existing driver assist - notably they all prevent accidents compared to just a human driving: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431415/
It really isn't a stretch from the 3 most frequent crash causes being human error and human assistance tools reducing accident frequency a bunch to say that all these systems coming together (as they cover near enough everything to do with driving a car) would be safer than a human driver, but I don't doubt you'll deny it as you're asking for something impossible to give (as governments haven't allowed full autonomous driving cars yet, so there's no statistics on their use) and so aren't actually looking for information but to confirm your biases and feel like you've "won", despite the fact there's no objectively unsuspicious data on the exact situation you're asking for meaning that you can't prove yourself right either beyond "I'm a little suspicious of this company so I must be right"
there's roughly 99.9998 of driving with zero accidents
I assume you mean accidents with a fatal injury, given there is a ~1% chance that any given death will be from a car accident (17.4 deaths per 100k per year * 70 years = 1.2%) - using your statistic yields closer to 2.5% however this works with only one driver dying.
Turns out humans are pretty damn safe
Turns out you've been tricked by statistics, driving is fucking lethal and chances are most people know or are friends with someone who has died or will die in a car accident (assuming ~80 friends/acquaintances per person)
Start with the numbers on humans driving drunk, tired, on their phone, while having a conversation, bored or in practically other state and work backwards. Driving is dangerous as fuck and it's pretty much universally accepted that the biggest challenge for autonomous vehicles is humans doing unpredictable and stupid shit
Human drivers are bad enough that I don't think there's any doubt that autopilot puts them to shame with regards to safety, so they can either look way better and not be suspicious, or look way better and be suspicious... Sounds like an obvious choice to me
I can't help but feel soap making itself wouldn't be as much use as why/when to use it?
Mixing oil with the ashy water (which is as simple as soap's gonna get) is reasonably easy to do and so useful that even without a civilisation people would probably be doing it either through discovery or by keeping doing it?
I think things like "how to build a wooden bridge so it will hold a laden cart and not fall down" are more likely to be lost without civilisation while still being incredibly useful (although I can't say I'd be very good for that)
I might add a section on refrigeration methods like zeers or wind towers/yakhchāls if the civilisation would be somewhere hot and dry, otherwise maybe something on using rivers for powering looms, mills etc.
Yes pretty much really using the right definitions, however there's different types of colonialism - the type where you make your own cities and push out the natives (eg Australia, most of the Americas) is gone, as is the type where you find a (nearly?) uninhabited area/island and use it to expand your influence in the area (eg. Mauritius and Singapore with 0 and 150 population at colonisation respectively) leaving only the type where you take over and control the administration of the existing population, eg in India, most of Africa, the USSR in Central Asia (among other places) and in neocolonialism
It's also hard to group them all together as "evil colonialism" too though as the 1st and 3rd are of course pretty evil, there's not a whole lot wrong with the 2nd
Wikipedia is a source unless you're writing an academic paper or for Wikipedia. It's far more accurate than most news sites and for the most part immune to political bias, as the only way it can be biased is to exclude things but if you do then someone else will just add them in
I just showed that the source given went directly against what was being said in the comment
Although the ADIZ covers parts of China's Fujian and Zhejiang provinces in its northwestern part, PLA flights in those areas are not reported as incursions unless they flew within the 12-mile territory limit or median line between the outer islands controlled by ROC forces and mainland China.
However, that's one hell of a goalpost shift from "directly caused" to supported half... Also the North were provoked and threatened by the South as much as the South were by the North... The North invading was largely because they thought they could take the South though, not because they were scared by the South into doing it.
Not really, it was agreed to as a treaty after WW2 (so US, China and USSR were all responsible) then the China-supported north invaded the US-supported south and it led to a stalemate
If anything the current unstable situation was caused by China, but there's no way the US were the direct cause
I mean the British had a huge role in ending slavery, not because it was the right thing to do but because other countries were doing it better and so it was better to invest in stopping others than doing it themselves
The US and USSR similarly ended most colonialism because they were the most powerful nations in the world and yet couldn't compete in that field
As countries become powerful, they seek to destroy whatever the previous symbol of power was and replace it with whatever they're good at until the next newly powerful country comes along
1000 bugs isn't that big, especially when it's the same bug surfacing in different ways or bugs you either barely notice or look past (but do notice, eg an alignment issue on the ui)
Your car also isn't a private space when the kid you just hit goes through your windscreen because you were doing 10 over the limit while looking at your phone
They told Meta that they had to pay to so much as host links to news sites on their platforms.
ie they had to pay to literally direct users to news sites, where news sites would make money off advertising to them, allowing the news sites to double dip. If anyone's got good PR, it's the news sites (would you believe it, the news sites have good connections with the press?)
There were ways to stop Meta from scraping news sites, but they decided to effectively stop them from even sharing news. They could've stopped the bill at purely "reproducing" news, but no, they got greedy and decided to make them pay for the privilege to give news sites free advertising. Why on earth would Meta agree to that, and why is it surprising that they just turned around and said no?
As much as Meta shouldn't be relied on for news, Canada creating legislation which stops Meta showing news then crying when Meta doesn't show news is frankly laughable and I don't know how their government didn't see it coming
Issue is Canada can't force them to do business there. If they continue introducing flawed legislation that is awful at doing what it's supposed to do, then Meta's just gonna get tf outta there. Canada aren't big enough to have that much of a dent on their income, so it's just not worth it.
A rough estimate for global life expectancy. It's actually slightly over 73, so the chances of dying in a car accident are marginally higher than I said.
The data I used wasn't related to driving frequency or age, it was purely the number of people in a random global sample of 100,000 people you would expect to die in a car accident in a given year. That of course includes people of all ages and people who never drive at all, but also taxi & HGV drivers. Even if we say people aren't in cars so much under the age of 5 or over the age of 60, that would push up the deaths per 100,000 people per year between 5 and 60 by the exact amount to keep the chance per year over a human lifetime at 17.4/100000.