It’s still a terrible metric to compare the safety of modes of transport and the Wiki article just below the table explains it well:

The first two statistics are computed for typical travels by their respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel “from A to B”. For example, these statistics suggest that a typical flight from Los Angeles to New York would carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. However, car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical; that journey would be as long as several dozen typical car travels, and thus the associated risk would be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated with making this journey by car would be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel is less risky than each hour of flight.

If people made similar trips with cars as they do with airplanes, cars would lose in the per journey metric big time.

I think I get what the guy is trying to say. Per journey, air travel might indeed end up being statistically less safe (how many times a year an average person flies vs. how many times they drive their car) but of course the question is whether that particular metric is any useful. Surely if you replaced all airplane trips with car trips, more people would die.

This Wikipedia article contains a table, which if true, confirms it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

If you sort it by Journeys, you’ll find that 117 people die in an airplane per billion journeys, while only 40 die per billion car journeys. But the article points out exactly what I said before.

Funny example that illustrates how important the choice of metric is, is the Space Shuttle which is statistically incredibly unsafe per journey (17,000,000 deaths per billion journeys) and even per hours (only skydiving coming first by a small margin) but is safer than bicycles and only twice less safe than cars per distance traveled because of those insane distances it covers in orbit.

Edit: Not that I do not know whether the table counts only commercial flights or all airplane/helicopter journeys. And also the statistics is pretty old (1990-2000) and only covers the UK, so you may still be right and commercial air travel in the last decade might be safer per journey than cars globally. Can’t find a better statistics.

Do those electric unicycles without a seat count? Because those are weaving through traffic at insane speeds all the time where I live.

You’re goddamn right.

I read “tooth-removing drug” and was kinda surprised by the enthusiasm in this thread.

*Puts on tinfoil hat.*

Obligatory HHGTTG quote:

In fact there was only one species on the planet more intelligent than dolphins, and they spent a lot of their time in behavioural research laboratories running around inside wheels and conducting frighteningly elegant and subtle experiments on man. The fact that once again man completely misinterpreted this relationship was entirely according to these creatures’ plans.

How high are you rn? Also, who the fuck’s Mr Rodgers (sic)?

“And wow! Hey! What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like … ow … ound … round … ground! That’s it! That’s a good name – ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me?”

Oh dog, they meant Fathrenheits! I was thinking 10 degrees Celsius hotter, which sounded even more insane (that’s 18°F if my math is correct).

Message to dear Americans: If you insists on using your freedom units, can you at least mark them properly? We have no way of knowing where you are from.

I know what a serif is. And I’m specifically not talking about that. I’m talking about this:

This is why I prefer sans-serif fonts that have lower case l’s with a little bend on the bottom. For example the new default font in Office (Aptos) does exactly that.

My understanding is that’s exactly the point. To make clocks on the Moon be synchronized with UTC and not drift over time. You can only do that by making the clocks physically tick at different rate. This is because of relativity - time itself on the Moon passes at slightly different rate than on Earth, so if your clock is precise enough, you need to compensate for it. Just like GPS satellites need to compensate for being in slightly lower gravity and going fast relative to stationary clocks on Earth’s surface. This isn’t any kind of illusion, this is how the universe really works. If you’ve seen the movie Interstellar, it’s basically the same effect they experienced on the planet orbiting a black hole, just a much less extreme case.

As a non-native speaker, I was kinda confused at first by this comic because in my head the vowels definitely didn’t sound all the same. But I personally consider pronunciation of vowels in English to be one of the greatest mysteries in the universe, so no wonder.

I mean, that idea isn’t mine, nor new: https://youtu.be/dechvhb0Meo?t=87

If they start building vertical cinemas, that’s when we lose.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Yeah, that’s no moon.

The “No nesting” rule should apparently apply not only to model rail but also to log cabins.

Aren’t rockets vehicles that ride on fire (that they create themselves)?