skisnow

Post is in the correct sub and yet everyone in the comments is taking it entirely at face value. Are you all new, or are you just playing along?

Basically yes. You can't usefully put a car into one of "crashes" or "doesn't crash" categories the way you can with e.g. what colour an M&M is, or whether Drug X did or didn't lower blood pressure in a patient, so miles travelled is a reasonable metric.

It's possible you might be getting hung up on notions of sample size having to be above a particular fixed number and therefore miles sounding like a cheat, but actually there never has been a universal "correct" minimum sample size; it all depends on the data. A billion of one thing might not be enough, but 4 of another might be plenty.

They gave you all the numbers you need to calculate the sample size for the Robotaxis, and it's safe to assume the sample size for regular cars will be much higher.

Tesla Robotaxis are involved in a crash for every 40,000 miles they drive. For comparison, the publication reported, cars driven by humans crash about once every 500,000 miles, meaning the Robotaxis so far have crashed 12.5 times more frequently than human-driven cars.

That's not how you measure sample size. There were 8 Tesla crashes. The crash is the outcome, not the sample.

8 Robotaxis crashed, having collectively driven the same distance that human-driven cars average two-thirds of a crash on. That's statistically significant and then some.

If we could only train everyone to loudly hiss whenever they hear GDP or Tax Rate used as a metric to gauge a country's value, a lot of people would be a lot better off.

LibreOffice is as good as Word. Which sadly means there are still no really good document editors out there.

I'm not actually sure. I've always answered it at face value, but I'm not a native speaker. I've probably been committing a faux pas, like disagreeing with a British person when they say "lovely weather today".

The Chinese for “how do you do” translates as “have you eaten yet?”

Bradford counts as its own race, regardless of skin pigmentation

not in a way that’s likely to result in significant harm

Yeah, I wish there was a word for scenarios that are technically racist, be we don't want to devalue the word by invoking it for stuff that your privileged ass can easily live with. It'd make all the MAGA word game bullshit slightly harder for them to pull off.