>>and significantly increases the average person's risk of stalking.
I mean, increase from 0.00001% to 0.0001% is still significant and yet I still wouldn't worry about it in the slightest.
I mean, increase from 0.00001% to 0.0001% is still significant and yet I still wouldn't worry about it in the slightest.
I think there's probably a little gender bias at play in your risk estimation. I too am not particularly worried about someone stalking my 6ft ass - but I'd say a majority of my female friends have experiences with stalking at some point in their life.
With statistical arguments, why do we spend so many resources on prevention of anything, e.g. cancer, when it only impacts a small number of people?
This kind of argument always comes down to choice. You care or you don't. Hard to argue. If you don't care about the fate of those "few", mostly women, well... there is no law of physics that I could throw at you, my negative judgement of your argument is not based on anything hard. Which is the case for a huge amount of such choices. You can have a society based on and steered by pure statistics and benefits, but what you will miss is that the very nature of such a society changes because you cannot put that into numbers.
The core of the argument is qualitative, which does not lend itself well to number-based reasoning.
I don't know why would you say such a thing.
Let me give you another example - the chance of getting stabbed on the streets of London is probably comparably miniscule to being stalked.
And now if we extend that argument - almost 100% of people getting stabbed are men.
Does that mean that as a man I should start wearing a knife-proof vest? Is me refusing to do so "not caring" or that "it's only statistics for me"?
After all, people getting stabbed have a 100% risk of getting stabbed - that's a pointless statement if I have ever seen one.
I just don't understand the aggression of that statement - just because my gender is statistically unlikely to be stalked doesn't mean that somehow I suddenly don't care, or that women shouldn't care - just that in your daily life you should really consider how big of a risk something really is.
>>With statistical arguments, why do we spend so many resources on prevention of anything, e.g. cancer, when it only impacts a small number of people?
That isn't the argument though. We aren't arguing spending or not spending money to prevent a small number of cases(in which case I'd say absolutely this money should be spent). I replied to someone who said AirTags should be completely and entirely banned over a very small number of cases where they were used maliciously.
To use the cancer comparison - it's like someone saying that we should ban bacon worldwide because it's a known factor in certain cancers. I'd also argue against it, because the risk to any one individual from eating bacon is absolutely miniscule.
>I continue to think Apple should have never released AirTags to the public, and should discontinue it
This discussion is specifically about what Apple should do, so I don't see how this is relevant.
We should also stop producing cars because someone may crash someone.
Almost every technological device (or even a simple device) can be abused in wrong hands, nothing to do with Apple or AirTags.
i don't think the jury is out on airtags just yet. it's clearly revolutionary technology in terms of reach, for better or worse.