I did do the math on it and the second guy only had a 1 in 3630 chance of dying of natural causes in that time window.
Tbf the evidence for the second person is not strong - that stuff does legit happen.
But the first guy? Damn! That’s enough right there.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
Yes if you’re including the entire population which is not how stats works as his demographic is exponentially more at risk than many others (age, onset of pneumonia, etc)
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I admit I am not a stats guy. Please tell me what I did wrong in my math. Totally open to being corrected here.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
You don’t just take the entire population and calculate the odds that they will contract and/or die of something. For instance, I could trivialize bike injuries/deaths in the US because countless people do not commute regularly on their bikes. The stat is only useful when discussing how many regular cyclists get hurt.
MRSA affects more specific demographics and conditions. Somebody who is older who contracts pneumonia and enters a hospital is far more likely than the regular population to contract it - and it has a 10-20% lethality which is extremely high - so their risk has to be assessed in that context.
If we only compared it against the general population, then hospitals would simply go “well in the grand scheme of things not many people die of MRSA.“ When what they’re (correctly) saying is “if you are elderly and have pneumonia we need to really watch out for MRSA.” Because that is a real risk.
OpenStars@discuss.online 6 months ago
We do ourselves no favors by sounding like conspiracy nutjobs who are uninterested in facts. When they go low, we should retain the high road, imho.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number. Now, will attacking me bring those two murdered men back to life?
OpenStars@discuss.online 6 months ago
I apologize for my wording - I agree with you that I was out of line. There was some point I was trying to make, about the need to be cautious with our wording, but somehow I ended up doing the exact thing I was trying to warn about, didn’t I? Anyway, sorry.
Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Well isn’t there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?
I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way. The first one was ruled as maybe just being some very very freak thing to happen, but it happening twice made it entirely implausible to be without systematic cause.
And well now it is happening twice in a few years with Boeing that weird things happen twice in a row with little time in between in relation to critical security flaws.
OpenStars@discuss.online 6 months ago
It sounds like neither of us know the answer to that, so I choose not to comment on that matter.
But how does that apply? One guy was a “suicide”, the other was bacteria - you just said it yourself, the metric only works if they crash “in the exact same way”, therefore by your own words, this seems to not apply?
There is a natural human bias to want to “know” things. Sometimes we even make shit up out of desperation to fill that void, but the more honest way (but HARD to do, emotionally, as in it seriously goes against the grain of our pattern-finding brain’s natural instinctual algorithms) is to simply say “I do not know the answer here”. Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that it is likely that the second guy was not killed - that would be 100% tangential to what I am trying to convey!
Rather, I am saying that the first guy looks to have been Epstein-ed, but we don’t know enough yet about the second guy. Could you imagine someone sent to kill him, and having a whole plan in place so that he wouldn’t even make it home but rather be taken care of in the car on the way there, but then he dies in his hospital bed first -> do you still get paid!?:-P Asking the important questions here!!:-D
But again, what happened to the first guy is already enough to know that some shady shit is going on. And yeah, that should make us think twice about the second guy… but having done so, I think that we just don’t know enough there to make a firm determination like we could for the first guy, without additional evidence. Which does not absolve Boeing one iota for being so shitty for the last few years.
Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I agree, that we cannot rule either death to be an assassination by itself. But their distinct occurrence in this context, e.g. that they prevent whistleblowers from testifying warrants an in depth investigation into both of them. In particular given the circumstances it is sketchy if Police or other officials are eager to close the case and rule it as non assassinations, without actually analyzing what was going on.
OpenStars@discuss.online 6 months ago
I don’t know the relevant laws there - but I am certain that an autopsy would have been done? Beyond that, what more could be done? If that means a more expensive autopsy, then yeah they should do that - even Boeing might agree on that point, to help absolve them, even if they did somehow give the bacteria to the guy, but like if they were confident that it could not be traced to them in that manner.
Speaking of, even if they were guilty in this second case, that’s a very different thing than someone being able to prove it. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a foundational bedrock principle in the USA, and we cannot simply throw that away without losing something precious.
And with them being military contractors, they probably have classified status to where local police can’t just go subpoenaing their records willy nilly. I could be wrong though. Then again, if they are used to dealing with the likes of e.g. literal Russian spies, then surely they would be smart enough to not leave a paper trail on something like this to begin with?
But the first guy should already be enough to start an investigation. The second guy… I dunno what that one means, maybe yes but also might not be.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Again, a dozen whistleblowers now, and 2 died fairly quickly after coming out.
gregorum@lemm.ee 6 months ago
*after agreeing to testify
ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 6 months ago
Maybe Boeing will learn from their mistakes and go for using their relatives as leverage or tarnishing their reputation by framing them with treason instead.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
So that’s enough to claim a successful conspiracy an American corporation to murder 2 people?
I have multiple comments now, it’s certainly warrants investigation. To completely the ignore it would be ridiculous. But y’all are absolutely a pitchfork mob over this stuff. You have already decided what the truth is and no investigation will satisfy you unless it says Boeing murdered both people.
Zink@programming.dev 6 months ago
I don’t know if that’s a rule of thumb or not, but it certainly makes sense.
First, the world of reliability runs on data and math. Lots of statistics, of course.
And second, aircraft are over-engineered for safety margins on top of safety margins. The test data might say you need a part that’s X thickness of aluminum in order to be 99% sure to never fail in the field. So let’s just make it 3X thickness to be safe!
So from that standpoint, back to back failures should pretty much always draw a bunch of attention in this industry.