Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash

Hypno

Crow
Paracelsus said:
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
911 said:
Sooth said:
RIP

It's a statistic. The more time you spend in a helicopter the more likely you'll get into strife.

"The U.S. helicopter accident rate in 2017 was 3.55 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, and the fatal accident rate was 0.59 per 100,000 flight hours, USHST said."

https://flightsafety.org/helicopter-accidents-up-in-u-s-down-internationally/
That stat means that if you say, commuted on a helicopter 10 hours per week, every week of the year, the expected amount of time you would need to spend in order to be in a fatal crash is over 300 years... Probably safer than sailing, or on par with riding a motorcycle or a bicycle in traffic.
I might be thinking irrationally here, but my main beef with flying (or in this case helicopters) isn't how often accidents happen, but that when they happen they're invariably fatal. According to this stat, for 1 fatal helicopter accident, there are 7 where the helicopter somehow lands safely and I'm wondering "How? Helicopters can't glide or make an improvised landing..."

I don't know what the non-fatal accident to fatal accident ratio is for cars, but I seriously doubt that it's 3.55 to 0.59 - it's more likely 13.55 to 0.59.
This right here is a perfect example of how statisticians conflate ensemble probability with time probability. Nassim Taleb sets out how computing your chances of survival on the basis that the chance of a helicopter crash is 1 in 300 years is horribly miscalculating your risks. Handsome Creepy Eel has it exactly right: it's the fact helicopter crashes are always catastrophic that makes the resort to "once in 300 years" statistic of use only as a mildly interesting math wank, on par with Sudoku. And quite the opposite to what he thinks, HCE is in fact thinking entirely rationally. It's the statisticians who are thinking thintelligently.


The difference between 100 people going to a casino and one person going to a casino 100 times, i.e. between (path dependent) and conventionally understood probability. The mistake has persisted in economics and psychology since age immemorial.

Recall from the previous chapter that to do science (and other nice things) requires survival but not the other way around?

Consider the following thought experiment.

First case, one hundred persons go to a Casino, to gamble a certain set amount each and have complimentary gin and tonic –as shown in the cartoon in Figure x. Some may lose, some may win, and we can infer at the end of the day what the “edge” is, that is, calculate the returns simply by counting the money left with the people who return. We can thus figure out if the casino is properly pricing the odds. Now assume that gambler number 28 goes bust. Will gambler number 29 be affected? No.

You can safely calculate, from your sample, that about 1% of the gamblers will go bust. And if you keep playing and playing, you will be expected have about the same ratio, 1% of gamblers over that time window.

Now compare to the second case in the thought experiment. One person, your cousin Theodorus Ibn Warqa, goes to the Casino a hundred days in a row, starting with a set amount. On day 28 cousin Theodorus Ibn Warqa is bust. Will there be day 29? No. He has hit an uncle point; there is no game no more.

No matter how good he is or how alert your cousin Theodorus Ibn Warqa can be, you can safely calculate that he has a 100% probability of eventually going bust.

The probabilities of success from the collection of people does not apply to cousin Theodorus Ibn Warqa. Let us call the first set ensemble probability, and the second one time probability (since one is concerned with a collection of people and the other with a single person through time). Now, when you read material by finance professors, finance gurus or your local bank making investment recommendations based on the long term returns of the market, beware. Even if their forecast were true (it isn’t), no person can get the returns of the market unless he has infinite pockets and no uncle points. The are conflating ensemble probability and time probability. If the investor has to eventually reduce his exposure because of losses, or because of retirement, or because he remarried his neighbor’s wife, or because he changed his mind about life, his returns will be divorced from those of the market, period.

We saw with the earlier comment by Warren Buffet that, literally, anyone who survived in the risk taking business has a version of “in order to succeed, you must first survive.” My own version has been: “never cross a river if it is on average four feet deep.” I effectively organized all my life around the point that sequence matters and the presence of ruin does not allow cost-benefit analyses; but it never hit me that the flaw in decision theory was so deep. Until came out of nowhere a paper by the physicist Ole Peters, working with the great Murray Gell-Mann. They presented a version of the difference between the ensemble and the time probabilities with a similar thought experiment as mine above, and showed that about everything in social science about probability is flawed. Deeply flawed. Very deeply flawed. For, in the quarter millennia since the formulation by the mathematician Jacob Bernoulli, and one that became standard, almost all people involved in decision theory made a severe mistake. Everyone? Not quite: every economist, but not everyone: the applied mathematicians Claude Shannon, Ed Thorp, and the physicist J.-L. Kelly of the Kelly Criterion got it right. They also got it in a very simple way. The father of insurance mathematics, the Swedish applied mathematician Harald Cramér also got the point. And, more than two decades ago, practitioners such as Mark Spitznagel and myself build our entire business careers around it. (I personally get it right in words and when I trade and decisions, and detect when ergodicity is violated, but I never explicitly got the overall mathematical structure –ergodicity is actually discussed in Fooled by Randomness). Spitznagel and I even started an entire business to help investors eliminate uncle points so they can get the returns of the market. While I retired to do some flaneuring, Mark continued at his Universa relentlessly (and successfully, while all others have failed). Mark and I have been frustrated by economists who, not getting ergodicity, keep saying that worrying about the tails is “irrational”.

Now there is a skin in the game problem in the blindness to the point. The idea I just presented is very very simple. But how come nobody for 250 years got it? Skin in the game, skin in the game.

It looks like you need a lot of intelligence to figure probabilistic things out when you don’t have skin in the game. There are things one can only get if one has some risk on the line: what I said above is, in retrospect, obvious. But to figure it out for an overeducated nonpractitioner is hard. Unless one is a genius, that is have the clarity of mind to see through the mud, or have such a profound command of probability theory to see through the nonsense. Now, certifiably, Murray Gell-Mann is a genius (and, likely, Peters). Gell-Mann is a famed physicist, with Nobel, and discovered the subatomic particles he himself called quarks. Peters said that when he presented the idea to him, “he got it instantly”. Claude Shannon, Ed Thorp, Kelly and Cramér are, no doubt, geniuses –I can vouch for this unmistakable clarity of mind combined with depth of thinking that juts out when in conversation with Thorp. These people could get it without skin in the game. But economists, psychologists and decision-theorists have no genius (unless one counts the polymath Herb Simon who did some psychology on the side) and odds are will never have one. Adding people without fundamental insights does not sum up to insight; looking for clarity in these fields is like looking for aesthetic in the attic of a highly disorganized electrician.
Summarising for poor old Kobe Bryant: per 911's "expected result", as a group, commuter helicopters used 10 hours per week only crash once every 300 years. That's a probability of failure ascribed to a group. But Bryant, being a man who used helicopters a lot, had a 100% chance of eventually having something catastrophic happening to him. And that number played out. It was the exposure to the risk itself that killed him and his own daughter. Cost-benefit analysis is, simply put, not valid where the downside risk is outright catastrophe or death, any more than your "expected return" in a game of Russian Roulette is $833,333 assuming a 1 million dollar bet.

To put the fallacy another way: nobody ever points out the total number of hours cigarettes are smoked across the planet without causing cancer or death as a demonstration of the safety of cigarettes. The point is that we cannot establish at what point a death-causing lung cancer first erupts into life, nor after what cigarette, so the rational person doesn't smoke.
Excellent explanation. Is that Taleb discussion from a book, or an interview? I've read some of his books but not all.
 

Hypno

Crow
wannable alpha said:
Stefan Molyneux on Kobe's death. Talks about the worship and deification of talent over morals and then the details of the rape case.


A WaPo journo got suspended for tweeting this 3-year old story and got many death threats
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-...ce-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession

Another good one
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-01-26/what-happened-kobe-bryant-sexual-assault-case
If you read those artlicles with even a modicum of skepticism, which are anti-Kobe, you realize that he was falsely accused. For example, the defense established through DNA evidence that she had sex with someone else 15 hours later, yet the prosecutor was charging Bryant with a felony. Also, in interviews her credibility was very poor and her own lawyer was concerned.

So the criminal charges were dropped, and its unfair to say he's a rapist, but that doesn't stop SJW from pissing on his grave.

So these false accusations never go away, not even at death.
 

wannable alpha

Woodpecker
Hypno said:
If you read those artlicles with even a modicum of skepticism, which are anti-Kobe, you realize that he was falsely accused. For example, the defense established through DNA evidence that she had sex with someone else 15 hours later, yet the prosecutor was charging Bryant with a felony. Also, in interviews her credibility was very poor and her own lawyer was concerned.

So the criminal charges were dropped, and its unfair to say he's a rapist, but that doesn't stop SJW from pissing on his grave.

So these false accusations never go away, not even at death.
The article says Bryant's lawyers said that she had sex 15 hours later, a claim denied by prosecutors.

Tabloids looking for sensationalist news and Kobe's lawyers were behind the character assassination campaign. Furthermore - "Her name was mistakenly released to the media three times (by policy, The Times never published it), and a sealed transcript of a closed hearing on DNA evidence was emailed to seven media outlets, including The Times."

Wanna bet that Kobe's lawyers were behind this as well. Just as the names of the initial Jane Does in the girlsdoporn case were also "accidentally" released by the San Diego court.

"“[The nurse] stated that there were several lacerations to the victim’s posterior fourchette or vaginal area, and two of those lacerations were approximately one centimeter in length,” testified Det. Winters. “And there were many, I believe, 2 millimeter lacerations. Too many to count… [The nurse] stated that the injuries were consistent with penetrating genital trauma. That it’s not consistent with consensual sex.”

Detective Winters further stated that the nurse told him the vaginal injuries had most likely occurred within “24 hours,” and that the accuser had “a small bruise on her left jaw line.” Also, that examiners had found “blood excretions” on Bryant’s T-shirt “to about the waistline.” The blood, testified Det. Winters, had “the same DNA profile as the victim in this case.” "

Innocent people don't issue apologies and do an out of court settlement. Don't tell me that he wanted to focus on his game. Strauss-Kahn and Epstein are guilty cause they are dirty old Jews but Kobe's a good guy cause he is good with the ball?

If nothing else, he is certainly an adulterer.
 

placer

Kingfisher
wannable alpha said:
A WaPo journo got suspended for tweeting this 3-year old story and got many death threats
Here is the offending tweet from that journalist: http://archive.is/NPRyw It was very inappropriate to bring it up so soon after Bryant's tragic death (but she is not the only SJW to do so; some ugly girl did so on my Facebook feed, so I blocked the fat pig). Media coverage about the journalist being suspended: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-link-story-Kobe-Bryants-rape-case-2003.html https://archive.is/ewW5M

I have looked at the case. Katelyn Kristine, the accuser, was a very promiscuous girl who wanted to have sex with Kobe Bryant. The sex was consensual, albeit rough and unpleasant for Katelyn. She was mentally ill and created a delusion in her head that, since the sex was too rough for her, she was raped.

Some more information on the accuser: https://www.nndb.com/people/480/000091207/ http://archive.is/zkF7h

Of course, Kobe should not have cheated on his wife and he should not had put his dong inside of crazy, but while what he did was wrong, it was not rape.
 
Paracelsus said:
Summarising for poor old Kobe Bryant: per 911's "expected result", as a group, commuter helicopters used 10 hours per week only crash once every 300 years. That's a probability of failure ascribed to a group. But Bryant, being a man who used helicopters a lot, had a 100% chance of eventually having something catastrophic happening to him. And that number played out. It was the exposure to the risk itself that killed him and his own daughter. Cost-benefit analysis is, simply put, not valid where the downside risk is outright catastrophe or death, any more than your "expected return" in a game of Russian Roulette is $833,333 assuming a 1 million dollar bet.

To put the fallacy another way: nobody ever points out the total number of hours cigarettes are smoked across the planet without causing cancer or death as a demonstration of the safety of cigarettes. The point is that we cannot establish at what point a death-causing lung cancer first erupts into life, nor after what cigarette, so the rational person doesn't smoke.
With that logic wouldn't almost any kind of commute in general be too dangerous to do?
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
When Kobe died I have to admit the thought passed through my mind that he was probably a non believer, a rich materialist living the LA lifestyle.

Turns out Kobe was a believer

Story is Kobe went to Mass Sunday morning before the helicopter Crash.

Bryant told GQ that “The one thing that really helped me during that process—I’m Catholic, I grew up Catholic, my kids are Catholic—was talking to a priest.”
Catholic Kobe
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
The Catalyst said:
Paracelsus said:
Summarising for poor old Kobe Bryant: per 911's "expected result", as a group, commuter helicopters used 10 hours per week only crash once every 300 years. That's a probability of failure ascribed to a group. But Bryant, being a man who used helicopters a lot, had a 100% chance of eventually having something catastrophic happening to him. And that number played out. It was the exposure to the risk itself that killed him and his own daughter. Cost-benefit analysis is, simply put, not valid where the downside risk is outright catastrophe or death, any more than your "expected return" in a game of Russian Roulette is $833,333 assuming a 1 million dollar bet.

To put the fallacy another way: nobody ever points out the total number of hours cigarettes are smoked across the planet without causing cancer or death as a demonstration of the safety of cigarettes. The point is that we cannot establish at what point a death-causing lung cancer first erupts into life, nor after what cigarette, so the rational person doesn't smoke.
With that logic wouldn't almost any kind of commute in general be too dangerous to do?
Probably not because cars are so packed with safety features that car crashes are overwhelmingly minor issues resulting in property damage, and rarely minor injuries as well. Only the smallest share of those accidents involves serious injuries or death.

A helicopter crash or a failure at a Russian roulette, on the other hand...
 

rainy

Woodpecker
wannable alpha said:
Stefan Molyneux on Kobe's death. Talks about the worship and deification of talent over morals and then the details of the rape case.


A WaPo journo got suspended for tweeting this 3-year old story and got many death threats
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-...ce-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession

Another good one
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-01-26/what-happened-kobe-bryant-sexual-assault-case
Stefan is trolling for clicks. His career has gone downhill and he's rightly being called out for his BS.

I have a problem with anyone who wants to focus on a simple negative aspect or occurrence in one's life on their deathbed, rather than looking at the individual's package as a whole(outside a handful of exceptions). And he did this within an hour or two of news breaking and a family being torn apart, a mother losing her husband and daughter.

Kobe's dedication to his craft was at a level rarely seen. But he was also one of the brightest athletes sports has even seen, spoke numerous languages, inspired countless across this planet and had the intelligence to be ultra successful in numerous ventures after his retirement.

He was also an incredible family man and his love for his daughters came thru loud and clear time and again. The reason he started traveling by helicopter was to spend more time with his kids as he was missing events when stuck in LA traffic.
 

Papaya

Crow
Gold Member
wannable alpha said:
Innocent people don't issue apologies and do an out of court settlement. Don't tell me that he wanted to focus on his game. Strauss-Kahn and Epstein are guilty cause they are dirty old Jews but Kobe's a good guy cause he is good with the ball?

If nothing else, he is certainly an adulterer.
Horseshit. Innocent people get ground up by the criminal justice system literally every single day. The vast majority end up "confessing" to something via plea deal because to go to trial is akin to rolling the dice.

You saying that if you were faced with the 50/50 prospect of 8 years as a sex offender "in a pound me up the ass" prison you wouldn't confess on principle if said confession / apology made all possibility of criminal charges disappear ?

:gtfo:

The girl's promiscuous past started to come to light thats why the charges were dropped.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The Catalyst said:
Paracelsus said:
Summarising for poor old Kobe Bryant: per 911's "expected result", as a group, commuter helicopters used 10 hours per week only crash once every 300 years. That's a probability of failure ascribed to a group. But Bryant, being a man who used helicopters a lot, had a 100% chance of eventually having something catastrophic happening to him. And that number played out. It was the exposure to the risk itself that killed him and his own daughter. Cost-benefit analysis is, simply put, not valid where the downside risk is outright catastrophe or death, any more than your "expected return" in a game of Russian Roulette is $833,333 assuming a 1 million dollar bet.

To put the fallacy another way: nobody ever points out the total number of hours cigarettes are smoked across the planet without causing cancer or death as a demonstration of the safety of cigarettes. The point is that we cannot establish at what point a death-causing lung cancer first erupts into life, nor after what cigarette, so the rational person doesn't smoke.
With that logic wouldn't almost any kind of commute in general be too dangerous to do?
Yes, that is why I've provided a rough estimate of the probability of a fatal crash per trip. In this case it is of the order of 1 in 500,000, pretty decent odds. Helicopters have been part of the landscape for 60+ years, if those odds really were unreasonable, they wouldn't still be flying.

A random event of this type has a statistical distribution, which is here a Poisson type/memoryless distribution, known colloquially in the stat community as the "lady's phone conversation" distribution, named so because how long a lady has already talked on a phone conversation with her friend has no impact over how long she will continue to talk. With this you have an associated expected value of number of hours before a crash, which I've also outlined. It's a fairly straightforward statistical notion, the Nassim Taleb wall of prose is quite superfelous here.
 

estraudi

Kingfisher
Gold Member
PapayaTapper said:
wannable alpha said:
Innocent people don't issue apologies and do an out of court settlement. Don't tell me that he wanted to focus on his game. Strauss-Kahn and Epstein are guilty cause they are dirty old Jews but Kobe's a good guy cause he is good with the ball?

If nothing else, he is certainly an adulterer.
Horseshit. Innocent people get ground up by the criminal justice system literally every single day. The vast majority end up "confessing" to something via plea deal because to go to trial is akin to rolling the dice.

You saying that if you were faced with the 50/50 prospect of 8 years as a sex offender "in a pound me up the ass" prison you wouldn't confess on principle?

:gtfo:

The girl's promiscuous past started to come to light thats why the charges were dropped.
Papaya is correct. The denzel movie "Roman Israel Esquire" touched on this subject. Prosecutors are more concerned with padding their resumes with "wins" versus providing actual justice for all parties involved. People take pleas to avoid going to trial and losing on an even larger scale. Simple scare tactics is all it takes, guilty or not. Can't believe this mistaken belief that "well if you're innocent you have nothing to hide or apologize for" still permeates this forums' very fabric.

Once accused you're basically fucked without a scrooge mcDuck-sized piggybank to defend yourself. There is no more innocent until proven guilty.
 

placer

Kingfisher
PapayaTapper said:
wannable alpha said:
Innocent people don't issue apologies and do an out of court settlement. Don't tell me that he wanted to focus on his game.
Horseshit. Innocent people get ground up by the criminal justice system literally every single day. The vast majority end up "confessing" to something via plea deal because to go to trial is akin to rolling the dice.

You saying that if you were faced with the 50/50 prospect of 8 years as a sex offender "in a pound me up the ass" prison you wouldn't confess on principle?
The while SJW white knighting "he must be guilty of something because she cried rape" argument is a fallacious argument. Variants of this argument are "he settled out of court so he must be guilty", "the college gave him a hearing about the rape allegations so he must be guilty", "he apologized so he must be guilty", "you must be a rapist because you support due process", and so on. They are all arguments used by people engaging in witch hunts and cancel culture.

In a fair and just world we do not say a man is a rapist without iron clad proof. That means proven guilty beyond a reasonably doubt in a court of law, or, if never taken to court, with irrefutable evidence (e.g. a video recording of the man having sex with the woman while she screams for him to stop, or someone hears her screaming for him to stop, as per Deuteronomy 22:24).

Kobe Bryant was not a rapist. No court of law convicted him of rape, and the charges were dropped. To say otherwise reflects poorly on the person making the unfounded accusation.

As the recently deceased Neil Peart once wrote:

Neil Peart said:
Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand
 

jordypip23

Ostrich
Gold Member
NoMoreTO said:
When Kobe died I have to admit the thought passed through my mind that he was probably a non believer, a rich materialist living the LA lifestyle.

Turns out Kobe was a believer

Story is Kobe went to Mass Sunday morning before the helicopter Crash.

Bryant told GQ that “The one thing that really helped me during that process—I’m Catholic, I grew up Catholic, my kids are Catholic—was talking to a priest.”
Catholic Kobe
Kobe also spent a good amount of his childhood (I think ages 6 - 13) in Italy. Those times may have shaped him a bit too:

Kobe Bryant recalled for his 'Italian qualities' by Europeans (ESPN)
 
Top