1. ## Re: xkcd

The "rate of traffic deaths per 100000 people" doesn't really account for how many out of that 100000 drive at all, how often they drive, how many miles they drive, what sort of conditions they drive in, etc.

2. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy
The "rate of traffic deaths per 100000 people" doesn't really account for how many out of that 100000 drive at all, how often they drive, how many miles they drive, what sort of conditions they drive in, etc.
Wikipedia to save the day! Sorting by fatalities per billion km driven, the UK has 3.6, germany has 4.9, and the US has 7.1. Only 20-ish countries have values for that statistic, and I don't know the state of their driving tests, so I cannot comment on general trends.

3. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Rockphed
Wikipedia to save the day! Sorting by fatalities per billion km driven, the UK has 3.6, germany has 4.9, and the US has 7.1. Only 20-ish countries have values for that statistic, and I don't know the state of their driving tests, so I cannot comment on general trends.
Which makes me think of something else... two somethings, actually.

1) What are the fatality rates per hour driven?

2) What are the fatality rates per mile flown and per hour flown for airline travel?

4. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy
Which makes me think of something else... two somethings, actually.

1) What are the fatality rates per hour driven?

2) What are the fatality rates per mile flown and per hour flown for airline travel?
I regard this as an increasingly fatuous exercise, considering how many times information has been met with some hitherto-unconsidered complicating factor or alternative measurement. Also, there's no way the gaps in average speed are large enough that (1) is going to differ massively from fatalities per passenger mile. That said, the answer to (2) is "utterly negligible compared to driving".

5. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Rockphed
Wikipedia to save the day! Sorting by fatalities per billion km driven, the UK has 3.6, germany has 4.9, and the US has 7.1. Only 20-ish countries have values for that statistic, and I don't know the state of their driving tests, so I cannot comment on general trends.
Japan has one of the strictest driving tests in the world, AFAIK, but it scores 8 on that scale. So, as we could probably have figured out a page or two ago, the difficulty of the driving test on its own isn't sufficient to tell you how safe a country's roads are going to be--there are many other factors which affect that.

6. ## Re: xkcd

To be fair, Japan has a lot of old drivers. Also, they need to get those isekai protagonists from somewhere...

7. ## Re: xkcd

I feel like we should drop the debate but on the other hand...
Clearly somebody who has driven for ten years is pretty independent of their actual driving test, the more relevant question is how young / new drivers perform. Sadly I can't find lots of data on that (also, of course there are many factors that also influence the matter. Still, the idea that someone with hardly any training can be as good as someone with thorough training seems unlikely to me, singular cases excluded)

8. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Lethologica
I regard this as an increasingly fatuous exercise, considering how many times information has been met with some hitherto-unconsidered complicating factor or alternative measurement. Also, there's no way the gaps in average speed are large enough that (1) is going to differ massively from fatalities per passenger mile. That said, the answer to (2) is "utterly negligible compared to driving".
The point of #1 was to try to see if there was anything interesting to be found regarding driving risks depending on the urbanization of an area being looked at.

The point of #2 was to see where things shake out when taking into account the hours spent driving per year, vs the hours spent flying. Hours driving per year for the average American is something like 295; hour flying for same is proving harder to find, but evidently the average is something less than 2 flights per year, which often gets rounded up to 2 because the journalists presenting the information don't like decimals and don't understand averaging less than a flight and a return.

9. ## Re: xkcd

I've read the "Museum of Dad-Trolling" comic more times than I can count, and I just now realized you can click on the exhibit blocks to make more panels of the comic appear.

https://xkcd.com/826/

10. ## Re: xkcd

I feel the need to point out that Andrew and Lyndon Johnson shared a whole last name, and weren't any more closely related than any two random people of European descent.

11. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by John Campbell
I feel the need to point out that Andrew and Lyndon Johnson shared a whole last name, and weren't any more closely related than any two random people of European descent.
According to a brief internet search, they were 13th cousins twice removed, which is impressive partly because they live a whole century apart. Oddly, despite both having done extensive genealogy, my parents haven't yet figured out how they are related to each other. I think my father doesn't have any royalty yet, so the easy way to be related is out.

12. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Rockphed
According to a brief internet search, they were 13th cousins twice removed, which is impressive partly because they live a whole century apart. Oddly, despite both having done extensive genealogy, my parents haven't yet figured out how they are related to each other. I think my father doesn't have any royalty yet, so the easy way to be related is out.
When I was on holiday as a kid, I met another kid who was uncle to a third kid, they were similar ages, I'm not sure but it's possible the nephew was the elder of the two.

13. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by halfeye
When I was on holiday as a kid, I met another kid who was uncle to a third kid, they were similar ages, I'm not sure but it's possible the nephew was the elder of the two.
I have a cousin who is younger than his oldest nephew. My mom has a 5th cousin twice removed who is the same age as her. Maybe I should have stated that my surprise was that they were only 2 generations apart. I guess the later one's cotemporaneous ancestor could have been 2 generations up and then 100 years is about 4 generations (really it is between 2 and 6 depending on when people reproduce).

14. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by John Campbell
I feel the need to point out that Andrew and Lyndon Johnson shared a whole last name, and weren't any more closely related than any two random people of European descent.
Originally Posted by Rockphed
According to a brief internet search, they were 13th cousins twice removed, which is impressive partly because they live a whole century apart. Oddly, despite both having done extensive genealogy, my parents haven't yet figured out how they are related to each other. I think my father doesn't have any royalty yet, so the easy way to be related is out.
And they were both bad presidents, too. Clearly, no more presidents from that line.

15. ## Re: xkcd

We are all something like 4000 or so generations related :-).

16. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by keybounce
We are all something like 4000 or so generations related :-).
Yeah... it's strange how people draw arbitrary lines between what is incest and what isn't Long term, you can't mate with any living being because we're all related.

17. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Kato
Yeah... it's strange how people draw arbitrary lines between what is incest and what isn't Long term, you can't mate with any living being because we're all related.
It's not about that so much as inbreeding being bad for the local genepool, if there's a lot, in the long term that's very bad. With a large population as we have now, it's not usually much of a problem, but in small isolated communities it matters a lot more, there first and second cousin marriages may have to be banned.

18. ## Re: xkcd

Hmm, then the only real solution is to import all our spouses.

Immigration: Good for the gene pool.

... Naah, that will never sell in a nation that doesn't believe in evolution, and thinks ... guuuurrrk [scrubbed by author to avoid getting a second strike. Please excuse the gurgles as his throat chokes to prevent his continued discussion in this manner. Now, I shall put him down, as I have learned I get twice the effort for half the choke, on my path back to the light side.]

19. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by halfeye
It's not about that so much as inbreeding being bad for the local genepool, if there's a lot, in the long term that's very bad. With a large population as we have now, it's not usually much of a problem, but in small isolated communities it matters a lot more, there first and second cousin marriages may have to be banned.
Sorry, I forgot to make my Tongue-in-cheek-Ness more obvious. I think I'm pretty clear on the biological reasons behind avoiding incest.

Also, thank you Mr Munroe for another weird thing to worry about after today... But since I usually don't ex a bottle of liquid I think it's more little gulps.

20. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by halfeye
When I was on holiday as a kid, I met another kid who was uncle to a third kid, they were similar ages, I'm not sure but it's possible the nephew was the elder of the two.
Originally Posted by Rockphed
I have a cousin who is younger than his oldest nephew. My mom has a 5th cousin twice removed who is the same age as her. Maybe I should have stated that my surprise was that they were only 2 generations apart. I guess the later one's cotemporaneous ancestor could have been 2 generations up and then 100 years is about 4 generations (really it is between 2 and 6 depending on when people reproduce).
A girl I dated in highschool was the youngest in her family. Her oldest sister had a baby before the girl I dated was born, so she was an aunt who was younger than her niece.

Did anyone watch the You've Got Mail remake with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks? Tom Hank's character has an aunt and a (half) brother who are both about 4 years old, while he's in, I'd guess, mid-to-late thirties.

21. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Lord Torath
Did anyone watch the You've Got Mail remake with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks? Tom Hank's character has an aunt and a (half) brother who are both about 4 years old, while he's in, I'd guess, mid-to-late thirties.
You've got Mail is a remake of a bunch of different films. Rather it is the latest in a long line of remakes. I think the original is something like The Shop on the Corner, but I can't be sure. One of the other remakes was In the Good Old Summertime.

22. ## Re: xkcd

Okay, I want to ask if this is actually a thing people do but it's the internet, so of course they do. But are there enough of them to warrant a comic? I know a lot of my faults Mr Munroe has pointed out over the years (oh you infamous 386) but this is something I cannot even see myself do..

23. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Kato
Okay, I want to ask if this is actually a thing people do but it's the internet, so of course they do. But are there enough of them to warrant a comic? I know a lot of my faults Mr Munroe has pointed out over the years (oh you infamous 386) but this is something I cannot even see myself do..
Stay off twitter is the best I can recommend.

But yes, I have seen plenty of people post "I suspect this thought is one someone, somewhere, holds, and this it is why it's wrong".

Grey Wolf

24. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c
Stay off twitter is the best I can recommend.

But yes, I have seen plenty of people post "I suspect this thought is one someone, somewhere, holds, and this it is why it's wrong".

Grey Wolf
It is like the ultimate strawman argument! It has the added bonus that since nobody actually holds the thought, nobody can attack back that you are representing it wrong.

25. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Kato
Okay, I want to ask if this is actually a thing people do but it's the internet, so of course they do. But are there enough of them to warrant a comic? I know a lot of my faults Mr Munroe has pointed out over the years (oh you infamous 386) but this is something I cannot even see myself do..
You know how the comic references itself sometimes?

This feels like one of those times.

26. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by enderlord99
You know how the comic references itself sometimes?

This feels like one of those times.
Well, for one thing, it is a clear follow-up to 386. In ten years or so we may get the next installment of this guy's relationship with the internet.

Grey Wolf

27. ## Re: xkcd

The logical next step is him finding, and getting mad at, an old post he himself wrote long ago.

28. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Fyraltari
The logical next step is him finding, and getting mad at, an old post he himself wrote long ago.
Are you saying you get mad at every post you write? Why would you even do that? How could you even make so many posts knowing you will be mad at every single post you've written? You have a terrible opinion about getting mad at posts written by yourself, and now I'm mad at you for your terrible opinion that you totally have

29. ## Re: xkcd

ExplainXKCD:
However, on the 2007 anniversary, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a blog post for LessWrong suggesting that "Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, take a minute to not destroy the world.".

Remember, all you scientific wizards, do not transmute a strangelet pair.

30. ## Re: xkcd

Originally Posted by Kato
Okay, I want to ask if this is actually a thing people do but it's the internet, so of course they do. But are there enough of them to warrant a comic? I know a lot of my faults Mr Munroe has pointed out over the years (oh you infamous 386) but this is something I cannot even see myself do..
Absolutely. I've done it. I read some scientific fact and go "Oh, haha, someone could so badly misunderstand that in this way" and then I go google that misunderstanding and get annoyed at the people who actually believe it.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•