Hacker News Reader

Comment by killtimeatwork | Hacker News Reader

Ok, but it's still not "extremely dangerous". Logging jobs have 4x the accident rate of delivery workers, what are they then - "omg, extremely, extremely for real dangerous"?

I think all of those jobs are relatively safe - a job with an accident rate of 0.027% per year is actually very safe - it's just less safe than say office jobs, which I would qualify as "extremely safe". For an actual extremely dangerous job, try working in Carnegie's steel mills around 1900, when hot metal or gravel would sometimes spill on happless workers, people would often get crushed or maimed etc.

View on HN

I don't understand why comparing to needlessly unsafe workplaces of the past (or inherently dangerous jobs of the present) is useful. Is your argument about more than just the semantics of what constitutes "extremely dangerous"?

The point being made is that the number of deaths attributable to grocery shopping (!) will rise sharply due to these ventures. Would you support a policy that every employer over 10000 employees has to sacrificially murder an employee annually (0.01% fatality rate per year), because "it's not as dangerous as being a policeman so it's fine"?

The funny thing is that every job we've been talking about, including delivery driver, is more dangerous than being a police officer (may his service be thanked).

> Is your argument about more than just the semantics of what constitutes "extremely dangerous"?

Basically, yes. Words have meaning, and misusing is bad writing, or worse (i.e. conscious manipulation).

Sure the %'s are lower, but it's still a pretty small workforce comparatively. I expect the accident rate to increase over the next few years as they services become more abundant globally. Additionally, do you think it's worth sacrificing human lives/causing people injury just to deliver your groceries on a silver platter? From my perspective I think even a single death in this industry is too much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com