That only strengthens the argument that violence is sometimes the answer. It doesn't matter that it's not always the right answer, the fact is sometimes it has been, and no society has ever managed to survive without choosing it at some point or another.

Indeed, there is the argument to be made that the capability to choose violence is critical even if you never actually need to choose it. This is the basis of deterrence theory which has arguably been the cornerstone of international peace for decades and the theory of the social contract which has been the source of most people's freedoms and political power. A people who will never stand up for themselves and their friends, no matter what injustice is done upon them, invites that injustice. By simply acknowledging there exists a point beyond which you would retaliate, you discourage others from risking going past that point.

We are not dealing with the tautologically true statement that we are assuming the 1/1000 estimate is correct and thus the odds are 1/1000 no matter what we measure. We are dealing with whether or not we can safely reject the hypothesis that the true odds are 1/1000 based on the actual observation of 1/12.

Billions of coins have been minted, and flipped a countless number of times, and we can do the physical analysis of coins such that we know the odds of a coin not being fair, without deliberate intervention to make them such, are astronomically low. As such no one is going to reject the hypothesis that a coin is fair based off of a small number of coin tosses. Hell even if you got 10 heads in a row, while the odds of that sequence is 1 in 1024, we would probably conclude it was luck rather than that the coin was flawed.

For spaceships on the other hand, those priors don't exist. We need to look at just the data from this particular test. The odds of a 1/1000 event occurring in the first 12 attempts is 1 in 84. For rejecting the hypothesis that a mass produced coin is fair, those odds aren't bad; but for rejecting the null hypothesis that the apollo capsules were just unlucky it's way over the reasonable threshold.

Indeed, it's rather amazing to think about just how recently things changed. The generation that first went to the moon had a much lower infant mortality rate than in the 1500s, but it was still about 20 times higher than today, and critically they were all raised by parents and lead by people who had grown up around normalized high infant mortality rates. Boomers are the first generation where infant mortality was continually below 5%, and millennials are the first generation to be raised by parents who considered their children's survival to adulthood a given. And of course that's for the developed world; global infant mortality only fell below 5% in 2010. Right now is the first time in human history that you can say with 95% confidence that a random human newborn will survive to adulthood. We should be much more risk averse than our ancestors, we are on average anteing up many more happy, healthy years than they were.

That assumes a fair coin. The fact is you don't know what the odds were of getting heads or tails for that particular coin, all you know is that you got 3/4 heads. And in this analogy, a few hundred coins have every been made, in maybe a dozen styles, none of which have been fair, so you have no good reason to believe that this particular coin should have 50/50 odds of landing heads up.

The older I get, the more I find that everyone is wrong. It's fucking astounding how much stuff either was never actually checked, or is true only under very select circumstances with those caveats being widely ignored. For example at work right now we have been using a test for 40 years that was developed around the idea that our product absorbed air - chemical variation would lead to extreme differences in results and you can't retest an item for at least 24 hours because it will still be affected. Turns out that none of that was true, all the error we were getting was from temperature change, the items can be retested after 45 seconds. 40 years and no one took 30 minutes to verify this claim which costs us millions of dollars per year. And this is just the example from this past week. I've probably seen several hundred such cases of completely unjustified claims being treated as gospel truth.

I can't speak for the countless things I've never tested, but if nearly everything I do test is wrong, across numerous fields full of very intelligent people, it doesn't give me much confidence about everything else. We live in a world that values simplicity and confidence, not nuance and rigorous verification. I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything without verification, not even my own past work.

Is that a warning or an endorsement?

If that's what the regulators are optimizing for.

The most economical option is to just invest in the military technologies to pass through the Strait. Minesweepers, missile defenses, an appropriate number of escort frigates - an appropriate naval force could most certainly escort ships through. It's just incredibly dumb to start a war with an adversary that has been threatening to close a major waterway for decades immediately after decommissioning your minesweeper fleet and while there are zero frigates in your navy.

Further, Elon said he considered it free speech he was deliberately protecting.

And theory of mind is how you can know what someone is thinking without them telling you.

Regardless of the word you choose to use for it, the point is that a swift and speedy trial is a right you have. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about a long trial taking place, you just can't force it upon someone. Slavery on the otherhand is explicitly forbidden. You can waive your right to freedom all day long, it doesn't make slavery any less illegal.

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

As for permitting someone to kill you, this falls very much into the same category of explicitly forbidden. Murder is illegal, and "he was asking for it" is not a valid defense. On the other hand, something like euthanasia, so long as you're in a jurisdiction that does not consider it murder, is permitted. In neither case is your right to live or lack thereof a question.