• GiveMemes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That’s not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn’t correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No one’s talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I’m not justifying anything because I’m not injecting my opinion here. I’m only pointing out that without context, counts don’t give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that’s just math. You can’t even derive a rate without that context!

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not my point though. We both know that the government agency doing this work is primarily interested in the rates, whether or not reports from the media are talking about the total numbers or not. The only reason they started the process of investigation was because of individual incidents, yes, but they’re not looking for a few cases, but a pattern.

        (Like this one:https://www.ranzlaw.com/why-are-tesla-car-accident-rates-so-high/)