Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

> Ten of these cities are in western Europe, notably Paris, which has suffered multiple terrorist attacks.

This seems incredibly misguided and really makes me question the entire ranking. It's one thing for the populace to irrationally fear terrorist attacks, it's another thing to codify that fear into an actual ranking without considering the vanishingly small chance of being affected.

The likelihood of you being a victim of a terrorist attack in any western city is negligible. It should simply not be a factor in considering where to live, full stop. The ranking doesn't include the percentage chance of an air conditioner falling on you, so it shouldn't consider terrorism.

View on HN

On the flip side, while the actual _risk_ we all agree is low, that's not the same as the human fear of it.

Even if illogical, given two otherwise equal cities, which is more "livable": the one with a stable and open atmosphere, or the one with scared citizens, under a state of emergency, where the country at large is implementing knee-jerk responses against the "others" who are related to this attack (referencing the current burkini bans rolling across France).

That's a good point that I hadn't considered.

It would be much better if they directly measured the impact of this on cities though, particularly because the reaction to terrorist attacks is vastly different (see the difference in German and French reactions, for example). In fact, it could then penalize heavy-handed responses even when there hasn't been a terrorist attack. For example, the US maintains some draconian security measures and a police state mentality even though there haven't been any recent terror attacks (does every single MTA rider really need to be constantly reminded to watch suspicious packages?).

For that matter, I'm confident that you're quite safe from terrorism in Dubai. But the ranking should really include the dramatic security apparatus/environment which is in place to maintain that safety.

Almost per definition, most of the damage done is the public reaction. In that sense, the US is affected much more than countries who have been targeted much more recently.

This.

If you visit Paris now, you see more police, a slightly worse nightlife. Right after the attacks you could see everyone was really on edge.

On the other hand if you're taking into account this kind of mood/atmosphere, a place like Paris should be generally pretty low on that scale as people you interact with in your daily life seem a lot more stressed, tired, unhappy and sometimes aggressive than in any other French city. I know it's a stereotype, but it's kinda true.

Another point is that you cannot afford living in Paris with just one working. Even if he's working as a software developer. How a city can be "liveable" if you cannot earn enough to live there?

Programmers make good money, but plenty of people make far more. Breaking 200k is very doable with a single income.

The question is if the city's are worth living there assuming you can afford to.

How much is the percentage of the people who is living in the city and makes that amount of income?

I agree, but i still wonder how big the chance really is ? All the numbers you see are usually country or even worldwide averages. But for example, if you live in Paris as a young professional who uses public transport a lot, flies a lot and goes to big public events regularly, i could see the likelihood being significantly higher than for someone living in a smaller town. Sure the average is really low, but as someone who is constantly around really crowded areas in a big european capital, i wonder how high the risk really is. Of course it's still irrational fear, i get that.

If they really wanted to include this as a factor, that's the sort of analysis which they should be doing. I'm pretty sure that it would show the fear is almost totally irrational.

For example, 35 people died in the Brussels Metro attack. Inshallah that's the only attack on the Brussels Metro this year.

That's 35 out of an annual ridership of 135 million. [0] Thus the chance of you being a victim on any particular journey is 35/135 million. If you take the subway twice a day, your likelihood of being a victim of a terrorist attack is 0.019%. It's just not a real risk.

What really annoys me is that they already include the crime rate is a separate consideration. Is terrorism not a crime? I don't particularly care if I die at the hands of a suicide bomber or a random mugger, so it doesn't make any sense to dramatize the risk of the former when it can already be captured in the standard crime rate.

[0] http://www.stib-mivb.be/figures.html?l=en

[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35%2F135+million*365*2

"35 people died in the Brussels Metro attack […] It's just not a real risk

28 people died in traffic in Brussels in 2015 (https://bestat.economie.fgov.be/bestat/crosstable.xhtml?data...), and Belgian traffic is dangerous, compared to Western Europe. So, if the 35 is not an outlier, I would call it a real risk.

Yes, it isn't large, but I would guess most unnatural deaths are from causes that each have 'negligible' probability.

Personally, I don't think fear of dangerous traffic is a very useful metric for deciding where to live either.

Also, if ISIS does successfully conduct an annual terrorist attack on the Brussels Metro then it might be something worth being more afraid of. At this point, treating it as a major factor in deciding where to live is just fear-mongering—especially when I personally think a place having previously suffered a terrorist attack lowers the future risk.

I read the same thing after the Paris attacks. Attacks caused 137 deaths and 368 injuries. This is low compared to the Paris population (2 million in the city, 10 million in the urban area). But personally, several friends were seriously injured in the Bataclan, and many of my colleagues knew victims too. You don't have to be a direct victim to suffer from an attack. Nearly every young parisian is linked to a victim. So, no, it's not a "totally irrational" fear.

But 135 million is the number of journeys, the number of unique people taking these journeys will be much much lower. If you take the metro twice every weekday, that is already around 500 journeys per year for one person, so the number of unique passengers per year would probably be much lower, more like single digit millions. The resulting likelihood is still low, but the chance of something happening over the next couple of years in a place that you are in frequently, thus forever shattering your sense of security in a city that otherwise has a super low crimerate is not that off. You don't have to be killed to be affected in a negative way by something like this after all. Adding to that is the fact that these kind of events have increased in frequency as of late and who knows how it develops in the future, especially if you country just took in huge amounts of syrian refugees without any background checks whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you're point is, because I captured that.

Each journey has a 35/135 million chance of you dying in a terrorist attack. I multiplied that by the number of journeys you would take per year.

"your likelihood of being a victim of a terrorist attack is 0.019%. It's just not a real risk"

If you do that for 50 years, your risk is now almost 1%!

I am sorry, but the risk of dying from cancer, heart problems or car accident in the working life period of ages 20-65 lifespan is comparable to that 0,95% "composite subway terrorism" risk.

So if the security problems in Belgium continue, you should totally worry about it.

Your lifetime risk of dying from heart disease is 20%. For cancer, it's slightly lower. [0]

So yea, even if you ISIS continued to carry out a major terrorist attack on your subway every year for the next 50 years, it would still be a relatively tiny risk.

[0] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-w...

Most of your heart disease risk is after the age of 65 (if you live in a developed country).

However, most of your terrorism risk and car accident risk is before the age of 65. This is where they dominate.

Do you think that car accident risk is real? How much fatalities from car accidents were there in Belgium this year?

"Lifetime risk" is stupid metric, borderline fradulent. I don't care about dying at the age of 85, would welcome it after all. I'll care a great deal if my relative dies at the age of 30 or 40.

This does not make sense. The bombs don't select by age.

Also, one would have to accumulate an overall score, cancer, heart, terror. I'm quite sure all these factors are different per region.

All I am seeing from this is people's perception of their own cities. At Melbourne, people are going to be filled with city-spirit.

Though this correlation breaks down for a lot of cities... (And I am just guessing on Melbourne as well)

I really don't know if this chart gives any credible insight.

Yeah, right. With all due respect, that is bullshit.

Say this to the Jewish community in Malmo, Sweden. The violence they have suffered at the hands of violent Islam is not a statistical anomaly.

Say this to the Jewish community in Copenhagen.

Say this to Israelis.

Say this residents of Iraqis.

Say this to residents of Turks.

Say this to Syrians.

Say this to women walking alone at night in Germany and Sweden.

Terrorism is real in all its forms (Islamic, "Mentally ill", etc), and it has a real impact on entire countries.

The recent attacks across France has hurt summer tourism.

Synagogues and Hillel schools around the world have high security because they have been targets of terrorism. (And not just graffiti)

Go live in some of these places (especially as a woman or Jew). Then come back to this conversation and tell me if you still believe that.

With all due respect, I am Jewish and lived the last 4 years in the Middle East. I've also traveled extensively in both Europe and the Middle East, thank you very much.

Terrorism is designed to breed fear, so it's no surprise that you (and others) are afraid. That doesn't mean it's not a statistical anomaly.

You're conflating a lot of different things. War (what's affecting Syrians), sexual violence (why a woman might be afraid to walk at night), anti-semitism (which I've seen far more of from Trump supporters than any Muslims I know), and terrorism are different phenomena.

> The recent attacks across France has hurt summer tourism.

So? I don't dispute that a lot of people are irrationally afraid of terrorism, that doesn't make it a real threat any more than the fact that millions of people believing in reincarnation makes it real.

"But you are a single data point, and that does not prove anything" :-)

My guess is that you are not a practicing Jew active in a community in Europe or the Middle East. If you were I doubt you would have this point of view.

I know lots of non-practicing / secular Jews who share your point of view, and this comes from an ignorance of what security measures it takes to live a Jewish life in Europe. I don't blame them, and I don't blame you. How would you know the threat unless you have seen it before?

I don't speak of only anti-semitic views. Antisemitism becomes terrorism when it is targeted violence against groups of people for the purpose of political or social objectives.

It is not just war in Syria. There is terrorism. Car bombs, massacres, and more against the civilian population to keep the docile. ISIS wants power.

Last, and this is my key point -- you are jumping through intellectual hoops to somehow magically arrive that

...and are you really saying that the likelihood of terrorism is the same as reincarnation?

If so, then I'll stop here....

So, your prefer your anecdata to his anecdata?

It's hardly anecdotal evidence, while I do agree that "terrorism" in Europe is not currently a major threat to your life on average he's correct about the situation of the Jewish communities.

Jews and Jewish businesses and institutions are attacked on a daily basis across Europe. The security around Jewish schools, temples, shops and even neighbourhoods is very substantial. In France soldiers still provide protection to Jewish institutions.

The Jewish community in Malmo has been pretty decimated, about 80-90% of it left, it wasn't that big but it doesn't matter. Jews have been leaving Europe in droves in the past few years, the majority of "anti semitic" incidents in Europe involve individuals with near eastern or north african heritage, and if you count only violent crimes then the statistics are even worse.

It doesn't take more than a simple Google search to find out that at least those parts of his claims are pretty dead on the money.

of course :-)

> Say this to women walking alone at night in Germany and Sweden.

I can't speak for Sweden, but I can say: if you actually lived in Germany, you would know "terrorist attack" is very, very low on people's lists of priorities. I don't know a single person who changed a single habit because of it.

Do you think there is a level of political correctness that people cannot pierce in "polite conversation?"

I feel that this is the case in Sweden. There are so many topics of discussion that are taboo that people avoid them. And, I think that includes this kind of terrorism and expression personal fears.

For example, Swedes will not say they are scared of radical Islam because they are afraid of being perceived as being afraid of radical Islam. (And therefore, racist)

That is why as ask the question -- do you think Germans have the same "meta-fear?"

edit: clarity / grammar

IMHO, I don't think Germans have that "meta-fear" you mention. I found Germans to be quite direct, and even the actual racists from the extreme right (the ones suggesting that they'll "give gas" to the refugee issue) do not seem concerned about that issue.

There is a discussion about how to integrate a million refugees, but it's less "what if they kill us all?" and more "we have no idea how to accommodate so much people all at once".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com