Comment by bunderbunder
10 years ago
You're attacking this analogy with made-up numbers and wild logical leaps. What is the real risk increment to packing a chute hastily, and does the real number help or hurt your position? Now make the stakes really high. Also consider the possibility that your choices have externalities, and others around you may not want to share their jumps with someone they perceive to be that reckless idiot who's going to get himself killed.
You didn't give specific numbers on how often someone can jump, but consider the realistic bounds on how much more often a person who packs hastily can skydive. How often is this person jumping? Are we in a scenario where the amount of time it takes to pack a parachute is really the limiting factor, to the point where the hasty packers can jump "way more?" Seems like what that would mean in concrete terms is that as soon as you hit the ground you're going to hit the john, re-pack your chute, and immediately be back in the plane. Is that a realistic scenario?
I found your response to the guy a bit hostile, he's still using a hypothetical analogy too.
Hostile to the idea, not the person. With some reason - there are a lot of pernicious myths that survive purely on the false mimesis you can generate by using made-up numbers. See: Politics.
As a skydiver - slow and carefully is better, but with that one becomes quicker as one does when practising lots. The number of jumps one can have in a day is limited by aircraft availability rather than packing speed. So of course there are 'professional' packers (say army) who are not constrained by aircraft and say have a week or two to repack a couple of hundred chutes - so different number likely apply. Further ones reserve chute needs to be repacked yearly (or so)- and that's one fella that one does wants the packer (needs a certified packer) to be slow and careful with. Thinking about it aviation (and space) seems to be one area where care comes before speed. So dude I think you are right in calling this out. [edited]
I'm specifically saying that "You're attacking this analogy with made-up numbers and wild logical leaps" is too harsh a way to begin a comment here - it's not civil. The dude just said some hypothetical thoughts, you could have responded "Unfortunately I feel your numbers are not drawn from the real-world, and I think some of your conclusions take real leaps of logic. Specifically..."
but hey it's just me. this place is usually pretty civil - it's in the rules.
1 reply →