News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bumble S-1 by philsnow on Friday January 15, 2021 @02:55PM (#25795495)
It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate?

Should we remove the laws about driving while intoxicated? That's just another form of reckless endangerment that leads to loss of life.

Re:Bumble S-1 by tomp on Friday January 15, 2021 @04:05PM (#25796480)
Should we be driving at all? After all, every second spent driving a car is equivalent to you killing someone with a low probability.
Re:Bumble S-1 by jdminhbg on Friday January 15, 2021 @03:03PM (#25795589)
> It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate?

It's the Quality-Adjusted Life Year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

Re:Bumble S-1 by philsnow on Friday January 15, 2021 @06:26PM (#25798023)
yikes, that's chilling.

> The method of ranking interventions on grounds of their cost per QALY gained ratio (or ICER) is controversial because it implies a quasi-utilitarian calculus to determine who will or will not receive treatment.

Re:Bumble S-1 by jdminhbg on Friday January 15, 2021 @07:57PM (#25798776)
Hardly chilling. Simply pretending tradeoffs don't exist doesn't make them go away.