Rogue @ Rogue @feddit.uk

Posts

0

Comments

377

Joined

2 yr. ago

Motorcycle:

16 to 18 fatal motorcycle accidents per million hours ridden

Personal flights:

21.1 fatal accidents per million flight hours

I'm really surprised at that.

Thinking about it though most bikers I know are young, have good reflexes and are mostly using a motorbike for commuting or travelling which is probably lower risk than the cliche teenage fool on a superbike my mind jumped to.

By contrast, the vast majority of light aircraft pilots I know are 60+, many 70+ with extensive health issues, heart problems and likely comparatively poor reflexes.

corporate aviation – the world of bizjets – is relatively safe. This sector only saw 0.48 fatal accidents per million flight hours from 2012 to 2021

General aviation overall:

9.5 fatal crashes per million flight hours

No, I would agree that comparing by hour is reasonable. Most light aircraft use (in my area at least) is generally recreational. People are flying because they enjoy the hobby rather than because they have a destination in mind, therefore they'll fly for a long duration but the distance travelled might not be far

Plus planes are checked before every use, and very few people are flying light aircraft in a reckless manner.

I'd be very surprised if there were any stats to backup a claim that light aircraft are as dangerous as motorcycles.

I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already become rampant.

I somehow replied to the wrong post. Here's what I meant to say:

But calling wait lists pointless is also pointless.

This is going to be ultra pedantic but in case I was misunderstood: I'm saying that using wait times as a target is pointless. Obvs we do need wait lists themselves...

What would you propose as a method for measuring NHS effectivness.

First I know I'm not qualified in any way to answer this and there will be people with knowledge who can provide a far better answer. But if you do want my opinion then I'd say a reasonable place to start would be to simply ask the patient. The written answers will be subjective but you can collate all the [yes/no] answers together to see objective patterns of whether patient satisfaction is improving or getting worse.

How long were you waiting? [Number of weeks] (Would be very interesting to compare this subjective answer to the actual recorded data)

Was the wait time acceptable? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Did your condition deteriorate as a result of the delay? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> How did you condition deteriorate? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Did you receive treatment? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Did the treatment improve your condition? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Why didn't the treatment help with your condition? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Were you referred to another service? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Do you agree with the decision to refer you elsewhere? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Why don't you believe the referral is correct? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Overall how satisfied were you satisfied? [0-10]

-> How could we improve? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

If you don't want to maintain your own library why does it matter whether it has DRM?

I love how people under NDA always feel the need to announce they're party to information you don't have.

It's such a weird human instinct to loudly assert that you know something but you're not going to share what it is.

That's basically what OP said isn't it?

You see a white dude smoking a joint so you wink at them and move on.

You see a black dude in a car so you put your hand on your holster, immediately your training tells you that you should sense the smell of weed, you approach aggressively make multiple conflicting demands in rapid succession, draw your weapon etc etc.

Later that day you see a white dude smoking a joint so you wink at them and move on.

It'll be the porn they charge for.

They know only wankers will give them money.

But calling wait lists pointless is also pointless.

This is going to be ultra pedantic but in case I was misunderstood: I'm saying that using wait times as a target is pointless. Obvs we do need wait lists themselves...

What would you propose as a method for measuring NHS effectivness.

First I know I'm not qualified in any way to answer this and there will be people with knowledge who can provide a far better answer. But if you do want my opinion then I'd say a reasonable place to start would be to simply ask the patient. The written answers will be subjective but you can collate all the [yes/no] answers together to see objective patterns of whether patient satisfaction is improving or getting worse.

How long were you waiting? [Number of weeks] (Would be very interesting to compare this subjective answer to the actual recorded data)

Was the wait time acceptable? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Did your condition deteriorate as a result of the delay? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> How did you condition deteriorate? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Did you receive treatment? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Did the treatment improve your condition? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Why didn't the treatment help with your condition? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Were you referred to another service? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Do you agree with the decision to refer you elsewhere? [Yes/No/I don't know]

-> Why don't you believe the referral is correct? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Overall how satisfied were you satisfied? [0-10]

-> How could we improve? [Answer in as many words as you like, or possibly a tree of yes/no questions]

Waiting lists are a fucking pointless target.

It simply encourages organisations not to add people to the wait list or to find any excuse to remove people from them.

• Speech and language therapists will remove patients from their wait list because the patient did not answer or return phone calls. Its an absolutely ridiculous system that will penalise patients with speech impediments for being unable to handle phone calls.
• Mental health services will insist patients see a trainee in order to meet their wait list target. Then if the patient is not satisfied with the trainee's competence the patient is added back to the wait list. However because the patient has technically been seen the target is met and the patient will end up waiting indefinitely because the service prioritises other patients in order to meet the wait list target.

The system is absolutely corrupt. Targets are fucking pointless.

There's a lot more detail in this BBC story but it still seems likely there's an injunction against publishing any specifics of the lies MI5 told.

My interpretation is that "Beth" was assaulted on multi occasions by a right wing MI5 informant. She reported this to the police and the suspect was arrested. However while in custody the suspect insisted he was an MI5 operative and MI5 was contacted, MI5 then intervened and had the informant was released.

Most likely MI5 then lied about intervening (the false evidence) but the BBC have clear evidence that MI5 took charge of evidence. Thus MI5's lies were exposed.

The police did not take a full statement from Beth or obtain the video of her being attacked. The CPS quickly discontinued the prosecution.

The police force concerned and the CPS insist the case was discontinued due to lack of evidence.

Police said they did not seize any items as part of their own investigation, and were "unable to advise when or why these were taken".

This was untrue, as the police force concerned was responsible for calling in counter terror officers.

The police claim that property had been returned to X was also untrue - the material had been given to MI5.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61508520

Stop discriminating on pointless metrics that may actually be harmful

• people from minority backgrounds are less likely to have had access to libraries and reading resources growing up. Thus less likely to read for pleasure.
• Men are more likely to favour Sci fi than women.

Your employer doesn't give a fuck about you. You only exist to make them profit. Just pick the most talented individual and stop discriminating based on bullshit.

If everyone puts wind turbines on the balconies they might end up blowing the building over

Bevy is damn impressive. I can understand why it's not suitable for large projects yet but for anyone tinkering or projects willing to adapt to a rapidly iterate ecosystem is well worth a look.

It's easy to gamble if money isn't yours.

To my knowledge Musk is gambling with his own money, not hedge fund capital or something.

If your day to day survival depends on every dollar, then you don't have the freedom to dick around with investments.

But, yes, this is correct. If you're extremely wealthy then you can keep gambling. If you fail you still have a million other chances. So you're kind of guaranteed to succeed eventually.

Whereas the common person has one chance. If they fail that's it.

In fairness he was able to recognise which companies to buy

I think this is just survivorship bias. There are millions of wealthy individuals investing in companies every single day. Occasionally these gambles pay off and make people extremely wealthy.

Most of the time the people who succeed just spend their incredibe wealth and live a quiet happy life.

But there are others who crave attention. These individuals bully their way into prestigious positions and pretend that they're leading the company.

Elon is that kind of person. He started wealthy, bet his money on companies that succeeded. Then took the CEO role so he would get credit for the companys' successes.

If ever people dare stop paying attention to him he'll do something drastic to recapture the spotlight on.

He's the kind of person who will stand on stage and do a nazi salute just because he wants you to look at him.

That's actually insane.

I wonder if they've just sent out a generic rejection without checking it.

operational issue

Why be so vague? That's only ever going to frustrate people.