Daniel V
583
Ω
2
166
Daniel V has not written any posts yet.
Here's some data (Miami Herald). It seems like a bit of a perfect storm of being in a denser and more night-active area, having more crossings, lacking fencing, not sounding horns (thanks locals!), etc. It's easy to blame victims since the tracks don't move, but it's clear that design factors contribute to safety, and Brightline has leaned into just letting the deaths happen (including inaccurately characterizing them).
My experience in some Southern towns is similar: either applied only to districts or zones so not as widely as people mythologize, or misinterpreted as referring to fewer people than the plain text reveals.
I agree this is better (the system rewards only a subset of what it does), but it is still overgeneralizing. Systems could have a different purpose but fallible reward structure (also Goodharting). You could be analyzing the purpose-reward link at the wrong level: political parties want change, so they seek power, so they need donations. This makes it look like the purpose is to just get donations because of rewards to bundlers, but it ignores the rewards at other levels and confuses local rewards with global purpose. Just as a system does a lot of things, so it rewards a lot of things.
My guess is the overall Amtrak number is the outlier, including lots of miles of open land. Perhaps relevant for assessing safety/mile when you'd otherwise drive or fly it, but not as relevant for assessing safety/risk in urban areas.
I too have grown increasingly skeptical that meta-analysis in its typical form does anything all that useful.
Unfortunately, people can be bad at understanding meta-analyses. If you have studies that disagree like 50/50, it's not necessarily true that half did something wrong. It's possible there is a legitimate hidden moderator that changes the effect of the variable (probably being revealed by the meta-analysis but not picked up sufficiently by popular reporting). Or even revealing that half have a fatal flaw would be a contribution of the meta-analysis! Sometimes the effects are not totally comparable, in which case that should either be modeled/adjusted, or excluded (probably already considered by the meta-analyst [though the salient... (read more)
I agree, the meta-point of selection bias is valid but the direction of bias is unclear.
That's true and a very important point I wish I had included. I assumed consciousness and some unstated degree of able-bodiedness. A good hit to the head on the way in and/or certain physical limitations, and mere inches of depth will be the determinant.
Yes, that's what I meant, thanks.
I'm glad she's totally fine. Maybe even a net positive for her and the family on future water safety. It showcases the importance of thinking about bodies of water beyond the prototypes.
A somewhat similar event occurred last weekend with my toddler in a pool. I was less than a foot away from him, as intended, and he was walking around in waist-deep water. Lost his feet but his waist is taller than his arms are long - so he needed me to intervene. He swallowed a little water in the less than two seconds he was sloshing around, but he otherwise didn't care.
The lesson is the same: the bottom needs to be... (read more)
There are two different problems being raised here.
The outside quote is Zvi pointing out the issue of what price is used to multiply by quantity output to get value estimates. This is a good... (read more)