I think the difference from a psychological point of view is that getting a drone drop randomly on your head feels, well random. Therefore it does not feel like you can do much of anything to avoid it, unlikely though it would be in practice. Getting killed by a terrorist or mass killer feels equally bad because it is random.

But something like sky divers getting killed does not bother me because I can avoid it, by not sky diving. Just like I can choose not to drive and so avoid almost any chance of being killed by another driver. It is the randomness and the fact you cannot avoid it that, I think, makes to less acceptable.

I personally know someone who was killed by a UPS truck on his parking lot. Don't think randomness only happens to others.

But the example you use is exactly that: something happening to another person.

People who don't drive don't get killed by trucks?

That's news to me.

I was thinking trucks get into accidents with public transportation, as well as run over pedestrians and bicyclists.

The fact that it doesn't appear random doesn't mean it isn't.

Getting killed by medical malpractice is also random, yet we don't really fret over our extremely error prone medical system. We don't even argue for removing doctors working 24 hour shifts, while we wouldn't allow a street sweeper to do the same.

> If drones have a lower %, we should view falling death boxes as acceptable

Yes, if drone delivery is safer we should switch. (Though there are better mortality measures than frequency of fatality.)

We’re not close now. In aerospace, frame is fate. Quadcopters are optimised for maneuverability and cost, not safety or reliability. They have no inherent redundancy and limited margins of safety. The reason they were chosen for this application is they’re cheaper to MVP, given the standing supply chain.

Compare that to the number of things that must go wrong for a truck to seriously injure someone. (Here: speed failure, braking failure, airbag failure, et cetera.)

The costs of the status quo are already priced in when people think about risk. Drones are a new thing, and new things are always harder to accept than the status quo.

If you want to appeal to the general public you'll need to stop treating people like perfectly rational mathematical calculators and start treating them like people who are embedded in a cultural context where car accidents are accepted as part of life and drone accidents are not. Statistical arguments are not convincing.

> and start treating them like people who are embedded in a cultural context ... Statistical arguments are not convincing.

Is this not the definition of pandering?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just want to be clear what you are saying: less logic, more pandering.

These are preventable risks. We have the technology where this would be a much less likely problem (hexacopters, octocopters, better string for the parachute etc), as many people in this very thread have pointed out.

Things Tyson pointed out (Medical errors, flu, suicide, car accidents, homicides) are preventable too, but he's making an unfair comparison.

We're already doing a lot to prevent deaths from the reasons he stated (better training, vaccination, suicide hotlines and more available mental healthcare, safer cars and better driver training, [many things]), but we're not doing nearly enough to prevent deaths that are caused by pure hatred towards those that are unlike them. Deaths from those reasons aren't going up by any significant amount while deaths by hate crimes are, which is one of the big reasons why people are taking problem with this, they want to prevent deaths of many innocent people before they happen.

Can you please point me to data that backs up your claim?

I mean specifically: # of hate crime deaths per 100,000.