iiSpook

iiSpook t1_jb0sbti wrote

Good post.

All the flaws people point out about it just made me engage with it more and I learned things I didn't know before. Even if you take out the piece of data about traffic it was interesting to see how the worst disasters in each category compare.

And I think the point you tried to make was that even some of our worst singular disaster experiences pale in comparison to the graveyards that roads are on a continued basis. And it's not like that's new information but we often just shrug it of as part of vehicular transport when there could be so much we could do to make it safer. Something we aren't able to do with most of the grand disasters yet road safety often isn't the most pressing issue in people's minds. I personally have two changes I would like to make immediately to make roads safer, if I could.

−1

iiSpook t1_jb0pu8j wrote

How far off the ground does a literal space rocket have to go to be considered a space-related accident then? I think Aviation is actually even more ambiguous because it could contain space travel as well as "normal" planes and all other forms of flight. Lists of spaceflight-related accidents even include training accidents. Would you say the Challenger disaster wasn't an accident that would fall into the "space" category?

As I said, extremely pedantic.

4

iiSpook t1_j6hu4ul wrote

Oh, wow, I did indeed assume it was radial. So cool to hear they can actually precisely aim it. I do understand that you can't compare sound waves in water to air directly, I was just asking for a rough ballpark and you did deliver.

Follow-up question out if interest, if you allow. If I was next to one and they aimed the "beam" away from me, would I hear nothing or just a faint noise or something like that?

Thanks for your initial reply.

3