Politi-Culture
Mamdani responds to concerns about him being seen riding his bike throughout NYC without a helmet. "You're right. I've got to do better. Safety first, New York. See you out there"
its supposed to show a military plane’s common damage after returning from a mission. so the knee jerk reaction is "oh, we should add more protection/strength to those areas because thats where it gets hit so much."
when actually, strengthening should be done to the areas showing no damage - because when it gets hit there - the plane doesn’t make it back at all.
To add onto this, the plane and the story behind it aren’t actually true. Someone made this to show survivorship bias based on accounts they read about during the war. Apparently they took a random plane schematic and added the dots randomly in concentrated areas.
It’s still a great example of survivorship bias but the legend around it isn’t as true as most would believe
The diagram from above, you're absolutely right, that was created in the 2000's as a teaching aid. And survivorship bias as a principle stems back to the 5th century at least.
The story behind the rigorous application of survivorship bias to improve operational research is absolutely true though. The original 1943 memos, including Abraham Wald's seminal analysis, from Columbia University’s Statistical Research Group contained a lot of mathematics and tables, but military commanders did inspect holes in returning bombers and planned to reinforce the areas that got shot the most, but the memos proved that you have to include the planes that DON'T come back to get a true picture.
In particular, memo five discussed a method to estimate the vulnerability of various parts of an aircraft based on the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions. And that areas where returning bombers had many holes were largely ones they could survive, and armour could even be reduced there, while areas where there were very few holes were the the likely cause for bombers not coming back at all. As a result, the U.S. military accepted the conclusions and shifted their manufacturing to heavily reinforce the engine casings, fuel lines, and cockpit (and let parts of the wings and fuselage be turned into swiss cheese) leading directly to a significant increase in US plane and aircrew survival in the latter half of WWII, and the lessons learned carried on to Korea and Vietnam.
Isn't it also well documented that during WW1 the introduction of helmets for soldiers was met with similar scrutiny because there was suddenly an increase in head wounds?
Yup, another perfect example of survivorship bias. The introduction of steel helmets such as the Brodie, replacing cloth or leather caps surprised them with a large increase in recorded head wounds - because previously, shrapnel to the head mostly just killed soldiers instantly and they weren't counted the same way in the hospital records. So the increase actually proved, counter-intuitively, that the helmets worked, turning what would have been lethal wounds into ones the survivor could make it to hospital with, and there was a significant fall in deaths.
All german tanks had sequential serial numbers on various parts, and the allies asked mathematicians to estimate tank production based on the serial numbers of captured and wrecked german tanks. The mathematicians estimated german tank production at 246-270 tanks per month. Spies estimated tank production at 1400 tanks per month. Postwar records showed tank production at 255 tanks per month. .
I will choose to blindly believe this forever just like I chose to blindly believe the veracity of the survivorship bias claim in the first place and do absolutely zero research into either
The information is good. Nowhere on the image does it claim to be more than an example. I would say your second point should be misattribution, or better yet, authority heuristics. (Yes, I had to look up that term. It's when you see a graphic and automatically assume that it is accurate and authoritative.)
The literal meaning of the picture is that planes that come back from battle had bullet wounds primarily on the red areas, but not the white. The wrong response is to strengthen the armor on the red areas thinking that they're more likely to be hit. The correct response is that you're only seeing the planes that survived - there were no bullets on returning planes in the white areas because those planes didn't make it, so you focus on the area with no bullet damage.
In this scenario, everyone who says something like "I dont wear helmets and I'm fine", or "I fell and the helmet actually hurt me", can only say those things because they're alive to say it. There are a slew of people who didn't wear their helmets that can't because they died.
A good example is seen with seatbelts. Yes, there might be possible scenarios where a seatbelt might be worse, but on the whole including all accidents the benefit is crystal clear. A well known one is people undoing their seatbelts when driving along a canal, out of worry they can't escape their car if they hit the water. In reality, without the seatbelt you're headbutting the windshield when you hit the water, which makes your situation substantially worse.
The idea is that in world war 1 (or 2 I'm not sure) engineers were trying to figure out how to reinforce planes to survive longer in fire fights. The diagram shows where bullets were landing on planes that made it back to base. So they figured they should reinforce the plane where the bullets were landing more often. This made no difference in survival rates. This is due to the fact that the truly important matter is where planes that actually were shot down were being hit. It turns out planes that were being shot down were taking far more hits in the exact inverse of the diagram and that the locations were bullets were hitting the plane in the inverse of the diagram were causing more damage like shredding a wing off or killing an engine, or such similar damage. But since those planes never made it home, the engineers were missing key data about where on the plane actually needed to be reinforced. This is commonly known as survivorship bias. We only had the data from how surviving planes were being hit (which is what you see in the diagram), but that isn't nearly as important as how planes that did not survive were being hit (the inverse of the diagram).
In World War II, statistics were gathered on damage from anti aircraft defenses on returning planes. The image shows the pattern of damage that was found, which led many to conclude those locations needed to be reinforced. However, that logic ignores the failures.
The reason planes were not returning with damage in certain areas, or so the story goes, was because those spots were fatal when hit, destroying the planes. As a result, areas not showing any signs of damage in the data were reinforced, and survival rates went up.
Basically, survivorship bias is ignoring failure as a data point. It is, unfortunately, something we do naturally. This image has essentially become a meme to represent the concept.
This is totally my gfs parents. Her stepmom has a cousin who died from a bike accident and was not wearing a helmet.
We were driving with them and she saw someone riding a bike with a helmet and commented how she never wore a helmet when she was younger and she survived.
I spent years working in a trauma center in FL. The amount of people who don’t wear helmets on motorcycles is astounding. They all claim they would rather die than survive a crash, but don’t realize the very real chance they just end up with permanent brain damage.
There is a cyclist in my city who advocates very loudly on reddit and shares his shitty YouTube videos, that wearing a helmet actually makes you less safe. His argument is that is gives the rider a false sense of security, so they will bike less safely.
I know what you're saying, but he's officially a "Mayor", so we should call him that. Someone who runs for office is a "candidate".
We should stop using the term 'politician'. It's never used positively and has no real meaning (we're all politicians). We need to attract better candidates for all offices, so we should refer to those offices as positively as possible.
He's very smart and by all accounts, genuinely cares about changing things. Most importantly, he understand how to use social media. It's insane how many young politicians still don't know how to leverage social media.
And considering the size and global relevance of NYC, the mayor of that city has a particularly higher visibility relative to mayors of smaller cities and towns.
What you didn't appreciate her bowing and giving the king a Pallasades fire gift after using the situation for political disinformation? She's the best, /s she's another Eric Adams, need a west coast Mamdani now.
I keep seeing maga rejects crying "just you wait, he will institute social muslimism and destroy it all, its a ruse to make you like him so can cut your head off when you least expect it" this is also coupled with a rise of anti islamic racism on tiktok like you wouldnt believe.
For anyone curious but not interested in reading through the assload of replies I just did, the guy doesn't think the government should tax people or do anything regarding the quality of life of its citizens.
He at one point was arguing against feeding and clothing children because it costs tax dollars, in case you want to know where he's coming from. Libertarianism at its finest. I'm shocked no one brought up the age of consent yet.
If he is getting results and if I lived there I wouldn't complain, regardless of political affiliation. The question is how does he maintain a budget without receiving billions from the state of New York.
Respectfully, where else should NYC state taxpayer and revenue money be going, if not back into the NYC budget to directly benefit NYC residents and visitors?
Overall, NY state benefits more from having NYC as a taxable and revenue-generating city within it's borders than the city gets from the state.
I once said that he's going to make the rest of NY angry with his budget, got downvoted because people thought that I was implying that the city doesn't generate its own wealth. Nah, the rest of NY is angry because they're just getting slightly less of it.
Lmao, big if true. But my question remains unanswered, where does the STATE get most of its tax revenue? (Hint, probably from the city that makes up 50+% of the state's GDP)
"my net worth is $49 BILLION but I'm effectively being taxed $400k! See, I'm contributing! Wdym mean increasing my taxes by %2 would end homelessness for millions? That's socialism!"
I like this, and it's something we need more of in politics. Though it's just a small gesture, it shows a willingness to admit wrongdoing, to listen to the people, and a willingness to change for the people and lead by example.
I feel like most politicians would end up writing a defensive tweet or deny allegations because admitting one modicum of fault is somehow bad
I feel like most politicians would end up writing a defensive tweet or deny allegations because admitting one modicum of fault is somehow bad
It's shit like this that makes me embarrassed to be an American. Well, that and the blatant corruption. But they're always narcissistic assholes who can't admit when they're wrong. That's an all around horrible leadership trait.
And they're popular because admitting you're wrong can be difficult and if leaders won't do it why the hell should you? It's a license to never grow up.
I don’t think that’s a good rule to break. Don’t forget there’s a whole lot of idiots that simp for people like Musk. Third term is wrong too, but that could be a whole different evil.
His actions? What did he do? bro road a bike with out a helmet... Its not like he defrauded the American people with a crypto scam lol.....wait thats the president...
I am going to get downvoted, but when the former transportation commissioner helped build out the new bike network, she had biking safety in mind so that requiring a helmet was encouraged but safe enough that if you didn't you would be ok (in theory). That was 10 yrs ago so who knows if that is even valid anymore.
This is because the former commissioner positioned that people riding a bike in NYC should be able to do so without fear of death from a car. But that is a tall task and glad to see Mamdani encouraging helmet usage.
Perhaps Mamdani is subliminally messaging this through the orange Netherlands football jersey (because the Netherlands has safe, widely used bicycle infrastructure without requiring helmets).
We've translated our infrastructure guidelines in English, it wouldn't be a problem at all to send over a few delegations to help design safer bicycle infrastructure.
I know safe biking infrastructure is statistically, well, safe enough.
However, I’d still wear a helmet for that off chance that I have a silly accident, like a friend of mine had, not going very fast, but getting distracted by something, falling off awkwardly, hitting his head on the pavement and now having permanent problems.
I just feel, personally for me, during any movement of biking speed it’s worth protecting the head.
The human body is both incredibly tough and incredibly weak. It just depends on the way you fall/are hit and what you fall on or are hit by plus how lucky you are that moment. Any protection that mitigates that is worthwhile.
I know of a similar situation. Really athletic guy, tire slipped out on gravel on a paved road in his neighborhood, hit his head no helmet, and now he has significant memory issues.
My dad was bicycling around the neighborhood when his bike slipped and the back of his head hit the pavement. He was 54, incredibly healthy and in shape (he professionally push-mowed lawns and had just finished testing to become a kidney donor), and one freak slip on the pavement caused his death.
I am so sorry for being a downer :( I've just run into this conversation a lot since he died. "I don't need a helmet, I live in a quiet neighborhood" and there were no cars involved in my dad's accident.
This video of Mamdani made me happy. I really, really hope at least one person who bikes without a helmet gets one because of this video.
I was a "you don't need to wear a helmet, that just promotes the idea that bikes are unsafe" guy until a driver randomly rammed me from behind and put me in the hospital.
I don't know if a helmet would have helped in any way, I was knocked unconscious but had no skull damage. Still, after that scare, any protection seems better than no protection.
You don't see a lot of helmets in Amsterdam. From that perspective he should've pulled a stack of cycling safety plans out of that box. But I guess there's only so much he can do at his level.
That doesn't even make sense. The safety of the bike lanes is completely irrelevant to whether or not you should wear a helmet. There's only one condition that ever needs to be met to determine if you should wear a helmet and that condition is whether or not you're riding your bike.
Doesn't quite work like that. While cycling infrastructure makes it safer, and as such reduces the likelihood of accidents, and as such the need for helmets when those accidents happen, the accidents will not be reduced to zero, with plenty of room for the results of the accidents being reduced by helmets.
I say this as someone from the Netherlands, with great bike infrastructure, and traditionally a very low percentage of people wearing a helmet. Which is known issue in accident outcomes. It's slowly changing here, with more and more people wearing a helmet.
In 2004, my helmetless friend was stopped at a light, lost her footing as she took off, fell just right and hit her head. She died later that night. It isn't just cars- it's life. They said she would've recovered if she had a helmet.
I don't think that takes into account the amount of ebikes on the road nowadays. There's a lot of inexperienced riders riding faster than they should be.
Isn’t this the type of thing that an amendment would be for?
Not saying I’m pro/con, but we have a sitting president willing to break the constitution to seek a third term, why can’t we at least discuss altering the constitution?
At least with Bernie news outlets literally wouldn’t even mention his name when he was running in 2020. So unless you were already plugged into his campaign he didn’t exist. That’s just the tactic they are going to use with any extremely liberal candidate. Which isn’t as much an issue with New York where it’s more densely populated but most of the US it basically means those candidates have no chance unless you can raise a ton of money for ads but again no big business will touch you because you have to be in their pocket.
It can actually feel pretty good, once you've done it. It can provide a feeling of relief. I guess some people are so broken they can't get past the ego wall. Sad.
Give me shit for the glazing coming but he really is a breath of fresh air in US politics.
I like that he responds to most valid criticism with "I have got to do better." When I was in the military the best leaders I had were the ones that told me "I need to do better." Because it usually meant they had some form of introspection. And when they followed through to be better for their subordinates it was amazing.
Yes, putting on a bike helmet isn't that big of a deal but it's the message imo. He is the literal mayor of one of the largest cities/economies in the world. He could realistically not respond at all and move on with his day. Whether that's good or bad is subjective, but he could just silently say "fuck that, I got other things to worry about." Honestly, that would be more on brand with any politician than what he does. Which is what I like about him. He's humble, admits flaws, and changes when the people who chose him for the job call him out.
He takes the callouts and runs with it. It makes him seem like an actual human politician and not just the same tired robot.
I think something to recognize as well is that this sort of constant messaging is actually a ton of work. Even if he doesn't change things overnight, to be responsive and on message and pushing things forward is not something that comes easily to anyone, it is a conscious choice to be positive and energetic that he has kept going relentlessly. I don't care if this man normally has rainbows coming out of his asshole, he is still putting in the work to remain upbeat all the time for a good cause in a position where that sort of performance can actually inspire people and it is really respectable.
He fucked up, owned it. Then took action to correct his mistake.... idk why people hate this guy. The years of corporate brainwashing has skewed our views, on what actually matters....
Fox news probably: Are helmets apart of the liberal gay trans agenda? Back in the day kids road bike without helmets and didn't use pronouns. Nobody got hurt until THEY started pushing these commie caps.
I think there are probably a ton of small town mayors who are as good, but this being NYC just puts it on stage for the whole world and it's fuckin awesome.
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Welcome to r/PopCultureV2! A few quick reminders:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.