@wildgrass saidWere these done by the same guys who did the Pinto cost benefit analysis?
By the way there have been many cost-benefit analyses done on this. The standard conclusion is that the level of security we have currently at airports is overkill. Attack probabilities would need to be much much higher to justify the cost and time waste caused by the increased protective measures.
Attack probabilities are much, much lower because of the security measures, so the way you framed it seems fallacious.
@no1marauder saidThat isn't how attack probabilities are calculated. I don't know all the details but I can post a few papers or you could Google it. I think it is well established that people vastly overestimate the threat of terrorism to their detriment. There's a flaw in our brains related to how we evaluate risks, and this is what terrorists take advantage of. Richard Reid wasnt trying to blow up a plane, he was trying to make billions of people take their shoes off and shuffle across a filthy carpet for 2 decades.
Were these done by the same guys who did the Pinto cost benefit analysis?
Attack probabilities are much, much lower because of the security measures, so the way you framed it seems fallacious.
@wildgrass saidIt makes no sense to pretend to calculate a probability that an event will take place if you ignore measures that are taken to prevent said event.
That isn't how attack probabilities are calculated. I don't know all the details but I can post a few papers or you could Google it. I think it is well established that people vastly overestimate the threat of terrorism to their detriment. There's a flaw in our brains related to how we evaluate risks, and this is what terrorists take advantage of. Richard Reid wasnt trying ...[text shortened]... ng to make billions of people take their shoes off and shuffle across a filthy carpet for 2 decades.
In any event, risk aversion is an evolutionary adaptation in humans: " If the stakes are sufficiently high, people are risk averse. Risk averseness is usually described as a resistance to accept a deal with risky payoff as opposed to one that is less risky or even safe, even when the expected value of the safer bargain is lower."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.6338
Obviously the stakes of a deadly terrorist attack are considered by most rational humans as "sufficiently high" to take measures to prevent it esp. when such measures are as trivial as the ones you are bitching about (shampoo bottles?).
I might also mention the economic concept of "negative externalities":
"Negative externalities, like pollution, often arise when the social costs incurred exceed the private benefits, justifying government intervention through taxation or regulation." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp
The costs to private security firms which fail to prevent a terrorist attack might be a loss of revenue or a few agents losing their jobs. The social costs of something like 9/11 are almost incalculable, but I dare say it probably ran, and still runs, in the trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lost and ruined lives - something the capitalist economic system cannot adequately deal with.
@no1marauder saidYour point that "people are afraid of terrorists so we should protect them against terrorists" is precisely the point. People are IRRATIONALLY afraid of terrorists, so much so that they're willing to dump thousands of pounds of shampoo down the drain for a little bit of false hope that its decreasing their risk of dying. Over 1,000 pounds was documented to be dumped just in one airport (Reagan International) over a 2 month period, so multiply that by 20 years and 100 airports.
It makes no sense to pretend to calculate a probability that an event will take place if you ignore measures that are taken to prevent said event.
In any event, risk aversion is an evolutionary adaptation in humans: " If the stakes are sufficiently high, people are risk averse. Risk averseness is usually described as a resistance to accept a deal with risky payoff as ...[text shortened]... nds of lost and ruined lives - something the capitalist economic system cannot adequately deal with.
And yea, I realize that you're not supposed to tell people that, to tell them what they shouldn't be afraid of, to pull the curtain off their fear, but their irrationality is affecting everyone else. Stop ignoring reality for one minute.
The TSA isn't in the business of keeping Americans safe. It's really in the business of catering to the fears of people who find all the rigamarole at airport security reassuring.
https://reason.com/2022/01/07/airport-security-measures-are-popular-but-pointless/
https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/JATMfin.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29035078/
@wildgrass saidNo, people are RATIONALLY afraid of terrorists. And they prefer that security at airports be handled by an agency that isn't primarily concerned with making a profit, just like they prefer that local law enforcement be handled in a like manner.
Your point that "people are afraid of terrorists so we should protect them against terrorists" is precisely the point. People are IRRATIONALLY afraid of terrorists, so much so that they're willing to dump thousands of pounds of shampoo down the drain for a little bit of false hope that its decreasing their risk of dying. Over 1,000 pounds was documented to be dumped just in ...[text shortened]... //politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/JATMfin.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29035078/
1 edit
@no1marauder saidUmm, the shampoo is just shampoo. It's not bombs. You flush hundreds of tons of shampoo down the drain for a fantasy of security.
No, people are RATIONALLY afraid of terrorists. And they prefer that security at airports be handled by an agency that isn't primarily concerned with making a profit, just like they prefer that local law enforcement be handled in a like manner.
I think you wrote trivial. It's for your security. Just trash everyones shampoo.
Let's say you're at a barbecue and people get sick and ill from the chicken. And then the solution is to not eat chicken for the next 20 years. Insane.
@sh76 saidDon't fly. I don't.
Just another example of the inherent inefficiency of government...
The shutdown isn't actually saving the government any money, since the TSA agents will get back pay once the shutdown ends (as they should, of course).
The government has plenty of money to pay the TSA.
It's simply being wrecked and hundreds of thousands of people being subjected to significant inconveni ...[text shortened]... om all other inefficiencies inherent in operation by people with no financial stake in the outcomes.
People that do not fly don't care very much.
So some well off people are standing in a line for a long time. Sucks to be them. I am glad some spoiled rich people are inconvenienced. Why should I feel sorry for them?
@Metal-Brain saidYou think the only people that fly are "spoiled rich people"?
Don't fly. I don't.
People that do not fly don't care very much.
So some well off people are standing in a line for a long time. Sucks to be them. I am glad some spoiled rich people are inconvenienced. Why should I feel sorry for them?
At least until this oil crisis, flying is/was extremely affordable for most Americans, and many people have to fly now and again to visit family, for work, school, etc.
If you're willing to fly Frontier or Spirit, you can fly from, say, New York to Florida for under $100. That's, like, 2 weeks' worth of designer coffees or 2 or 3 nights at the bar.
I get that you probably don't need to fly, as being a professional conspiracy theorist can be done from anywhere, and if you have family, they're probably not so anxious to see you anyway. But for many of us, flying is just a normal part of life, and not a particularly expensive one.
@wildgrass saidSecurity is important, but what we choose to inconvenience people over is insane.
Umm, the shampoo is just shampoo. It's not bombs. You flush hundreds of tons of shampoo down the drain for a fantasy of security.
I think you wrote trivial. It's for your security. Just trash everyones shampoo.
Let's say you're at a barbecue and people get sick and ill from the chicken. And then the solution is to not eat chicken for the next 20 years. Insane.
Security should really be analyzed by the number of minutes you're costing people. If 1,000 people wait 50 minutes to go through TSA, that's 50,000 minutes, or over a month. Do 1,000 of those and you've cost an entire lifetime worth of time, one bag check at a time.
In security analyses, nobody seems to assign any weight at all to inconvenience.
Bill James makes this point in one of his books. Commonplace enough, but he adds something interesting: That extreme risk aversion may also dramatically decrease our transportation technology infrastructure by discouraging the development of faster and more efficient technologies due to the bureaucratic morass of getting them allowed.
It's hard to really measure these things, but I thought that was a very interesting point.
@wildgrass saidThere's probably a dozen gas stations/convenience stores within a mile of the average airport which sell TSA compliant bottles of shampoo. Trivial.
Umm, the shampoo is just shampoo. It's not bombs. You flush hundreds of tons of shampoo down the drain for a fantasy of security.
I think you wrote trivial. It's for your security. Just trash everyones shampoo.
Let's say you're at a barbecue and people get sick and ill from the chicken. And then the solution is to not eat chicken for the next 20 years. Insane.
@sh76 saidIt's been shown that TSA is mostly a performance. Arena level security (regular metal detector) plus a bag scan would be perfectly fine.
Security is important, but what we choose to inconvenience people over is insane.
Security should really be analyzed by the number of minutes you're costing people. If 1,000 people wait 50 minutes to go through TSA, that's 50,000 minutes, or over a month. Do 1,000 of those and you've cost an entire lifetime worth of time, one bag check at a time.
In security analyses, nobo ...[text shortened]... lowed.
It's hard to really measure these things, but I thought that was a very interesting point.
@no1marauder saidAnd still they're throwing out tons and tons of it at every airport in the country.
There's probably a dozen gas stations/convenience stores within a mile of the average airport which sell TSA compliant bottles of shampoo. Trivial.
@sh76 saidYou missed the point.
You think the only people that fly are "spoiled rich people"?
At least until this oil crisis, flying is/was extremely affordable for most Americans, and many people have to fly now and again to visit family, for work, school, etc.
If you're willing to fly Frontier or Spirit, you can fly from, say, New York to Florida for under $100. That's, like, 2 weeks' worth of designer ...[text shortened]... way. But for many of us, flying is just a normal part of life, and not a particularly expensive one.
Flying is optional.
But I don't expect a spoiled lawyer like you to do anything but cry about your options. Drive. That is how I went to Florida and back. Usually I would stay in a motel in Kentucky and enjoy the mountains in the morning driving through Tennessee.
I could care less if people have to wait hours to get on a plane. I just laugh at you spoiled lawyers and doctors complain about it. As if you have no other option. And the other options are not that bad. Driving has it's perks. You would know if you were not always the impatient flier.
My kids do not live so far from me they need to fly. Maybe your kids just want some distance from their father. That way they don't have to see you so often because you are such a snob and religious fanatic.