Also, the bystander effect deals with the probability of any individual helping out. It's still possible that there are two forces at play here: the declining probability of any individual helping vs the increasing probability that someone in an ever-larger group will still help despite the individual effect. It might be the case that there is a critical value N of bystanders where the second effect overpowers the first one.
I doubt that as N increases the "network" effects are strong enough to overcome the chance that someone that will help, regardless of what the effect of "N-1" bystanders is, shows up.
The effect is informative regarding what to do when you need someone's help, though. Since the basis of the effect is the diffusion of responsibility, it helps to address a person directly when asking for help. Instead of asking whether anyone in the group can help with something, point to a particular person and ask them whether they can help. In this way, the refusal to help becomes explicit and people will be less likely do that. This is something I've observed from personal experience too.
I have done this, and it has helped in mitigating the bystander effect. It means that there is a relatively large amount of people in the population that know what to do when accidents occur. IMO this makes bystanders who have done such programs to help, since they know how valuable time is in a lot of these situations.
Since I have done this training, whenever there is an accident on the streets and I am nearby, I will go help because I know what to do. And am therefor more likely to take initiative.
So I wouldn't immediately say this discount would be correct. It could also mean that some mitigation against the bystander effect is working.
"circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party who could face potential injury or death without being rescued"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
In the mentioned Kitty Genovese incident the numbers were inflated and while it isn't mentioned here, there actually were police reports while it was happening.
They were just ignored until it was too late.
This is the reason why Good Samaritan law is being brought into effect across the world.
Until someone gets fined for an ambulance being called on their behalf, because they dropped their watch on the floor...
This problem doesn't exist in countries where there is public healthcare like in Australia, Canada and I believe most countries in Europe.
And the fun fact is that US citizens call socialism "evil" while you sacrifice your health and/or your livelihood over a broken leg. I got a completely different definition what "evil" is, and oh btw I'm serving capitalism in EU (so don't start crying out "socialiiiiiist!!").
No it would not.
It's not open source, I'm not about to defend a product I know nothing about.
the issue is not with the technology, but with people, as always. with the adoption of ipv6, iot and gps_in_everything etc. it's not a question about if the technology can be used for bad things, it's a question about if it will.
people who only believe int he darker side of this technology can easily avoid it by not participating. they should let people who willingly participate do so at their own 'peril' if that's their opinion.
privacy advocates are the new religion trying to push their views on everyone even though it's just a matter of opinion. some people love to be tracked everywhere for the benefits it can give them, other people hate it for the downsides it might have. its all a matter of opinion for users, and a question of integrity for its masters.
I did find a longer discussion of the topic, so it seems the idea wasn't pulled out of thin air, but it still isn't a measurement: https://chublicopinion.com/2015/12/06/the-unbearable-coldnes...
> As opposed to social media or GPS tracking apps, Schaeffer said the Apple Watch fall-detection feature offers extra reassurance by not relying on a person to alert first responders.
We're early enough in the adoption cycle that this is an undeniable benefit. Obviously, if nobody else is around, then it's life-saving. But I do worry about the long-term ethics. What if, when such watches become common, it becomes socially acceptable to just ignore people in life-threatening distress - "I don't need to call 911, their watch will have taken care of that." Just another nail in the societal coffin of distorting individualism as insularity.
Not a reason to ban this technology (or any similar action). Just something to keep in the back of our heads as the adoption curve progresses.