|
On August 19 2015 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 14:33 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 19 2015 14:26 Buckyman wrote:Even during peak drunk driving hours, only about one driver in seven is actually drunk. The proportion is smaller at other times of day, which is also when most accidents happen. To put this in perspective, the same source also says: This implies that the probability that a DWI trip will result in a crash is 1/625, or 0.0016. By comparison, the probability that a non-DWI trip will result in a crash is 1/9210, or 0.0001. Why does when a drunk driver get in a car crash with a sober driver, the sober driver is always seriously injured or dies and the drunk usually just gets minor or no injuries? gonna need you to cite sources on these claims; i'm not sure where you're getting these generalizations and i'd like numbers instead of "always" and "usually"
In the number of serious injuries/deaths globally, there are quite a few cases where for example a drunk driver will run over pedestrians or crash in bycicles. In those cases, of course, the drunk driver is less likely to be injured (protected by the car). On the other hand, a drunk driver is far more likely to be involved in accidents on his own (crash into a tree, house or similar) for which he will be the only one injured.
But there are no studies that I can find which would indicate a drunk driver is less likely to be injured or is likely to have less severe injuries in a car crash between sober and drunk drivers.
There is one study (www.scientificamerican.com) that states for some injuries someone drunk is less likely to die than a sober person (8% instead of 10%).
|
|
|
On August 19 2015 12:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 01:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 18 2015 22:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 18 2015 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there any kind of website that gives a general objective viewpoint of a companies general overall reputation (or at least as objecctive as possible?) I'm just curious how some companies were viewed. What do you mean by "reputation" just like how its seen as dealing with customers, employees and stuff The only way to know how well it deals with its employees is tracking if its growing in size, or if its shrinking in size. If its growing in size--then they either pay too much or have an awesome work environment. If its shrinking in size--then its either paying too little, or has an awful work environment. Every other metric is too biased to be trusted. The best way to know how it deals with its employees is to call customer service, tell them you have a problem with their product, and see how much or little they help you. Just go to their website and read their product names and specs before you call.
Err, plenty of hidden variables there too. Companies expand and contract all the time regardless of whether their employees are particularly happy, because whatever product/service they sell is in more/less demand.
|
On August 19 2015 12:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 01:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 18 2015 22:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 18 2015 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there any kind of website that gives a general objective viewpoint of a companies general overall reputation (or at least as objecctive as possible?) I'm just curious how some companies were viewed. What do you mean by "reputation" just like how its seen as dealing with customers, employees and stuff The only way to know how well it deals with its employees is tracking if its growing in size, or if its shrinking in size. If its growing in size--then they either pay too much or have an awesome work environment. If its shrinking in size--then its either paying too little, or has an awful work environment. Every other metric is too biased to be trusted. The best way to know how it deals with its employees is to call customer service, tell them you have a problem with their product, and see how much or little they help you. Just go to their website and read their product names and specs before you call.
I don't know about that, "Bob" who talks with the southern accent but lets the Indian slip through when he says his L's might have a completely different working experience than someone in another department.
|
On August 19 2015 22:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 12:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 19 2015 01:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 18 2015 22:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 18 2015 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there any kind of website that gives a general objective viewpoint of a companies general overall reputation (or at least as objecctive as possible?) I'm just curious how some companies were viewed. What do you mean by "reputation" just like how its seen as dealing with customers, employees and stuff The only way to know how well it deals with its employees is tracking if its growing in size, or if its shrinking in size. If its growing in size--then they either pay too much or have an awesome work environment. If its shrinking in size--then its either paying too little, or has an awful work environment. Every other metric is too biased to be trusted. The best way to know how it deals with its employees is to call customer service, tell them you have a problem with their product, and see how much or little they help you. Just go to their website and read their product names and specs before you call. Err, plenty of hidden variables there too. Companies expand and contract all the time regardless of whether their employees are particularly happy, because whatever product/service they sell is in more/less demand.
I gotta agree with Acrofales, customer service is no indicator of what working at a given company is like unless you want to work in customer service. If then, it would only serve to show you the script you'll be reading again, and again and again.
On August 19 2015 22:43 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 12:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 19 2015 01:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 18 2015 22:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 18 2015 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there any kind of website that gives a general objective viewpoint of a companies general overall reputation (or at least as objecctive as possible?) I'm just curious how some companies were viewed. What do you mean by "reputation" just like how its seen as dealing with customers, employees and stuff The only way to know how well it deals with its employees is tracking if its growing in size, or if its shrinking in size. If its growing in size--then they either pay too much or have an awesome work environment. If its shrinking in size--then its either paying too little, or has an awful work environment. Every other metric is too biased to be trusted. The best way to know how it deals with its employees is to call customer service, tell them you have a problem with their product, and see how much or little they help you. Just go to their website and read their product names and specs before you call. I don't know about that, "Bob" who talks with the southern accent but lets the Indian slip through when he says his L's might have a completely different working experience than someone in another department.
I used to do vendor compliance, well, I still do but a different kind of thing, I feel absolutely miserable for the people that have to do that work.
|
Different source, but same study. Both based on www.researchgate.net
There is a 2012 bibliographic study on the subject that quotes the article in Review of literature
42 articles in the biblio for those interested, but most of the analysis is in Polish which makes it a difficult read for me.
|
On August 19 2015 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 14:33 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 19 2015 14:26 Buckyman wrote:Even during peak drunk driving hours, only about one driver in seven is actually drunk. The proportion is smaller at other times of day, which is also when most accidents happen. To put this in perspective, the same source also says: This implies that the probability that a DWI trip will result in a crash is 1/625, or 0.0016. By comparison, the probability that a non-DWI trip will result in a crash is 1/9210, or 0.0001. Why does when a drunk driver get in a car crash with a sober driver, the sober driver is always seriously injured or dies and the drunk usually just gets minor or no injuries? gonna need you to cite sources on these claims; i'm not sure where you're getting these generalizations and i'd like numbers instead of "always" and "usually"
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20091001/why-drunken-drivers-are-more-likely-to-survive-a-crash
In a study to be released, investigators with the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute found that intoxicated patients do, in fact, survive traumatic injury more often than those who are sober.
Ironically, alcohol appears to act as a buffer that inhibits certain stress-related chemicals released when a person suffers major injury.
"We're not in any way encouraging people to drink; drinking is one of the leading reasons why people end up in the trauma unit to begin with," said Dr. Christian de Virgilio, a trauma surgeon and researcher who conducted the study. "What we're hoping is that this might lead to looking into whether alcohol might be utilized in some way to increase survival."
Researchers analyzed data from 7,985 trauma patients brought to County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center near Torrance from 2004 to 2008.
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
The results will appear in the October issue of The American Surgeon, a scholarlyscholastic journal.
The local study comes on the heels of a separate analysis released in late September by physicians at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Looking at national data from 14,419 patients, they found that 7.7 percent of patients with alcohol in their system died of major head injuries, compared withto 9.7 percent of sober patients - a statistically significant difference.
Physicians there, too, concluded that "the finding of reduced mortality in traumatic brain injury patients with preinjury ethanol raises the intriguing possibility that administering ethanol to patients with brain injuries may improve outcome," according to the study.
De Virgilio and others say more research needs to be done to isolate the exact cause of this finding, but they suspect it has to do with the body's chemistry.
When stressed, the body releases chemicals that restrict certain receptors in the brain. It appears that alcohol acts as a buffer to counteract this reaction, particularly in the receptors that allow the body to heal, he said.
De Virgilio noted that chronic alcoholics, specifically those with liver and kidney damage, do far worse than sober patients. The liver controls a number of healing functions, such as blood clotting.
"It appears the only benefit comes from an acute, one-time use (of alcohol)," he said.
About 8 percent of the trauma patients studied at Harbor-UCLA had alcohol in their system, and they were extremely intoxicated. The median blood-alcohol level of these patients was 0.26, more than three times the legal limit for driving.
The local study took into account all types of trauma injuries: gunshot wounds, stabbing, blunt-force trauma due to car crashes, and other accidents.
|
On August 19 2015 22:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 12:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 19 2015 01:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 18 2015 22:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 18 2015 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there any kind of website that gives a general objective viewpoint of a companies general overall reputation (or at least as objecctive as possible?) I'm just curious how some companies were viewed. What do you mean by "reputation" just like how its seen as dealing with customers, employees and stuff The only way to know how well it deals with its employees is tracking if its growing in size, or if its shrinking in size. If its growing in size--then they either pay too much or have an awesome work environment. If its shrinking in size--then its either paying too little, or has an awful work environment. Every other metric is too biased to be trusted. The best way to know how it deals with its employees is to call customer service, tell them you have a problem with their product, and see how much or little they help you. Just go to their website and read their product names and specs before you call. Err, plenty of hidden variables there too. Companies expand and contract all the time regardless of whether their employees are particularly happy, because whatever product/service they sell is in more/less demand.
My apologies: calling customer support tells you how they treat customers, not employees.
Growth/decline tells you two possible truths: either they pay too much or treat you too well.
For example: Monsanto treats it's employees really well, so it's huge and still growing despite relatively low pay in comparison to other companies. Amazon pays it's employees really really well despite being one of the worse places to work in. Growth tells you that either one or the other is true. Sites like glass door will have inherent bias to it always. Look for growth since it is more honest.
|
Is the "ask stupid" thread your favorite thread?
|
ABL when we get more than just ad bots is my favorite.
|
On August 20 2015 00:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
I haven't read the paper, it's not even out yet it seems, but I always get wary when you have to church away 90% of the effect, but still claim a finding in the last 10%. Do you REALLY understand all of the convoluted factors to the accuracy that you can trust that the last 10% are real? REALLY?
Anyway, I wonder how many innocent people this article will kill due to being an excuse for drunk driving. 
|
On August 20 2015 12:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 00:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
I haven't read the paper, it's not even out yet it seems, but I always get wary when you have to church away 90% of the effect, but still claim a finding in the last 10%. Do you REALLY understand all of the convoluted factors to the accuracy that you can trust that the last 10% are real? REALLY? Anyway, I wonder how many innocent people this article will kill due to being an excuse for drunk driving.
I was talking to my friend about the boy who cried wolf.
Me: "that story has a great moral"
Him: "Don't lie or no one will believe you?"
Me: "Silly, its about the gamblers fallacy."
Him: "What do you mean?"
Me: "Results of past actions does not causate results of current actions. Sure he lied before, but that doesn't mean he's lying now."
Him: "If you ever have kids, I won't believe a damn thing they're saying."
The point being, it is very easy to twist things to sound very different than the truth of the matter. And I have a feeling this article will end up killing a lot of people.
|
On August 20 2015 16:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 12:53 Cascade wrote:On August 20 2015 00:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
I haven't read the paper, it's not even out yet it seems, but I always get wary when you have to church away 90% of the effect, but still claim a finding in the last 10%. Do you REALLY understand all of the convoluted factors to the accuracy that you can trust that the last 10% are real? REALLY? Anyway, I wonder how many innocent people this article will kill due to being an excuse for drunk driving. I was talking to my friend about the boy who cried wolf. Me: "that story has a great moral" Him: "Don't lie or no one will believe you?" Me: "Silly, its about the gamblers fallacy." Him: "What do you mean?" Me: "Results of past actions does not causate results of current actions. Sure he lied before, but that doesn't mean he's lying now." Him: "If you ever have kids, I won't believe a damn thing they're saying." The point being, it is very easy to twist things to sound very different than the truth of the matter. And I have a feeling this article will end up killing a lot of people.
"church away" is of course mobile-swipe-speech for "correct away", but maybe you guessed that. I was not implying that the corrections are based on religious beliefs (although in some cases you wonder). 
Also, I don't think you can apply gamblers fallacy to the cry wolf story, as the measurements are not independent, and you don't know the wolf-criers false-crying rate from the start. Some people lie more, and if you catch someone lying 10 times out of 10, chances are that that person is a frequent liar, and should rightfully be trusted less. The previous experience is a measurement of this persons lie-rate, which is very relevant in how to handle his current statement. Unlike a die, that if you KNOW that is unweighted and has 1/6 to turn up 6, no amounts of non-6 rolls should make you think that a 6 is more or less likely the next turn.
And I think the gamblers fallacy traditionally is the other way around, right? They say that if you don't get [result X] in a long while, then [result X] is more likely to turn up soon, due to [gamblers flawed argument]. That is, the opposite event is more likely. So in the case of crying wolf, the gamblers fallacy would be along the line of "global false wolf-call is about 50%, and this guy has called 23 false calls in a row now, so he is almost for sure going to be correct this time, because common, what are the chances of getting 24 false calls in a row from 50%???"
Anyway, sorry, I don't even remember how I ended up in this discussion, but I am sure it was for very good reasons!! :D
|
On August 20 2015 12:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 00:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
I haven't read the paper, it's not even out yet it seems, but I always get wary when you have to church away 90% of the effect, but still claim a finding in the last 10%. Do you REALLY understand all of the convoluted factors to the accuracy that you can trust that the last 10% are real? REALLY? Anyway, I wonder how many innocent people this article will kill due to being an excuse for drunk driving.
The main point, according to [Further study] :
- % of patients "injured" with high blood alcool content is higher than % of people with high blood alcool content in the population. Therefore drunk people are more injury prone
- For any hospital admission studied, except for blunt head trauma which was the subject of the previous article, there is a higher death rate for people with high BAC
Article goes on to point at a population selection bias in the samples taken by various studies that lead to different results.
The next one in the chain, [Analysis on a larger sample]
This one links the remaining 10% to sampling artifacts and points out the effect does not exist over a larger/better designed sample.
Still... Once the study is in the field and relayed by mainstream media, it can go on fueling the belief for a while !
|
On August 20 2015 18:05 Oshuy wrote:The next one in the chain, [ Analysis on a larger sample] This one links the remaining 10% to sampling artifacts and points out the effect does not exist over a larger/better designed sample.
Called it! :D
And THAT is confirmation bias my friends. I'll complain about the other study from third hand information (a poster relaying information from a popular science article) with some highly uninformed critisism of the analysis, then blindly trust the third hand information from another article that agrees with me. Then I go and feel happy about having shot down that silly study about alcohol protecting you from injury. System working as intended!
|
On August 20 2015 16:27 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 16:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 20 2015 12:53 Cascade wrote:On August 20 2015 00:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:
When looking at the raw numbers - not taking into account the severity of injury - researchers found that 1 percent of drunk patients died, and 7 percent of sober patients died.
When the data was adjusted for age of patients and severity and type of injury, a much more accurate comparison, they found that drunk patients had a 65 percent greater chance of survival.
I haven't read the paper, it's not even out yet it seems, but I always get wary when you have to church away 90% of the effect, but still claim a finding in the last 10%. Do you REALLY understand all of the convoluted factors to the accuracy that you can trust that the last 10% are real? REALLY? Anyway, I wonder how many innocent people this article will kill due to being an excuse for drunk driving. I was talking to my friend about the boy who cried wolf. Me: "that story has a great moral" Him: "Don't lie or no one will believe you?" Me: "Silly, its about the gamblers fallacy." Him: "What do you mean?" Me: "Results of past actions does not causate results of current actions. Sure he lied before, but that doesn't mean he's lying now." Him: "If you ever have kids, I won't believe a damn thing they're saying." The point being, it is very easy to twist things to sound very different than the truth of the matter. And I have a feeling this article will end up killing a lot of people. "church away" is of course mobile-swipe-speech for "correct away", but maybe you guessed that. I was not implying that the corrections are based on religious beliefs (although in some cases you wonder). Also, I don't think you can apply gamblers fallacy to the cry wolf story, as the measurements are not independent, and you don't know the wolf-criers false-crying rate from the start. Some people lie more, and if you catch someone lying 10 times out of 10, chances are that that person is a frequent liar, and should rightfully be trusted less. The previous experience is a measurement of this persons lie-rate, which is very relevant in how to handle his current statement. Unlike a die, that if you KNOW that is unweighted and has 1/6 to turn up 6, no amounts of non-6 rolls should make you think that a 6 is more or less likely the next turn. And I think the gamblers fallacy traditionally is the other way around, right? They say that if you don't get [result X] in a long while, then [result X] is more likely to turn up soon, due to [gamblers flawed argument]. That is, the opposite event is more likely. So in the case of crying wolf, the gamblers fallacy would be along the line of "global false wolf-call is about 50%, and this guy has called 23 false calls in a row now, so he is almost for sure going to be correct this time, because common, what are the chances of getting 24 false calls in a row from 50%???" Anyway, sorry, I don't even remember how I ended up in this discussion, but I am sure it was for very good reasons!! :D
Its technically only a gamblers fallacy if you expect the next thing the boy says to be true *because* he lied before. Simply put, the fact that he lied before does not mean he is lying now. However, the amount of trust I give him will shrink the more he lies--despite the fact that he is still as likely to be telling the truth now as he did initially. The truth is though, when it comes to the world of lying, the only thing that matters is how much trust others give you and not how much accuracy your statements have currently.
The example I gave to him was that Edison kept testing new filaments for the light bulb despite being constantly wrong about it all the other times because being false X times does not mean you'll be false the X+1 time of the attempt.
Long story short--the boy had it coming for lying. He should have used different lies to maintain scientific rigor.
|
On August 20 2015 20:59 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 18:05 Oshuy wrote:The next one in the chain, [ Analysis on a larger sample] This one links the remaining 10% to sampling artifacts and points out the effect does not exist over a larger/better designed sample. Called it! :D And THAT is confirmation bias my friends. I'll complain about the other study from third hand information (a poster relaying information from a popular science article) with some highly uninformed critisism of the analysis, then blindly trust the third hand information from another article that agrees with me. Then I go and feel happy about having shot down that silly study about alcohol protecting you from injury. System working as intended!
Indeed ! The important part is to avoid the disclaimers in any of the studies, and to relay only extracts from the abstracts that match the intended opinion. If anyone needs to defend another option, I only reported 3 articles out of 42 so far. Chances are the one you need is in the remaining 39.
|
Three cheers for cherrypicking!
Huzzah huzzah huzzah!
|
On August 21 2015 01:47 Acrofales wrote:
Three cheers for cherrypicking!
Huzzah huzzah huzzah!
For it's a jolly good fellow, for its a jolly good fellow, ...
Can you say long hanging cherry picking?
|
On August 21 2015 08:01 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 01:47 Acrofales wrote:
Three cheers for cherrypicking!
Huzzah huzzah huzzah! For it's a jolly good fellow, for its a jolly good fellow, ... Can you say long hanging cherry picking?
All I heard was long and cherry so I'm assuming this is a porno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
