Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Longcol]

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This is a great anecdote, but also proves banning cameras at swimming events "in case someone recognises the swimmer [and some unspecified benign outcome results]" is utter cobblers.

I was chatting to one of the other parents at my lad's club session tonight and she recounted the time she managed to video one of her daughters swimming a  gala. She got home and proudly set it going only for her daughter to point out she'd videoed the wrong swimmer !

To people who don't know that's actually an easier mistake to make than you might imagine (se my anecdote above......), and she took it in good humour. But, more positively, it proves CONCLUSIVELY that the chances of anyone recognising an unknown swimmer off a video is as close to zero as it's possible to be without being, err, zero.

Quoting yourself???

 

SIgn of summat and it ain't good.

[Delayed]

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

. But, more positively, it proves CONCLUSIVELY that the chances of anyone recognising an unknown swimmer off a video is as close to zero as it's possible to be without being, err, zero.

Irrelevant. Venues will still put their own restrictions on photographing if they wish. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Longcol said:

Quoting yourself???

 

SIgn of summat and it ain't good.

Bold, caps and italics though.  If that won't convince you that an anecdote is a sound basis upon which to build an irrefutable argument, nothing will.

[Carl]

1 hour ago, Hecate said:

Bold, caps and italics though.  If that won't convince you that an anecdote is a sound basis upon which to build an irrefutable argument, nothing will.

For me, he just needed to conclude his post with "QED" and I'd have been 100% convinced...

[HeHasRisen]

10 minutes ago, Carl said:

For me, he just needed to conclude his post with "QED" and I'd have been 100% convinced...

Either that or FACT! at the end, in capital letters, exclamation mark optional.

[Chekhov]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

Quoting yourself???

SIgn of summat and it ain't good.

Far from it, it is relevant to the post I just made.

It's called making the thread more readable.....

 

3 hours ago, Delayed said:

Irrelevant. Venues will still put their own restrictions on photographing if they wish. 

You are correct, actual risk is irrelevant to these cretins.

 

2 hours ago, Hecate said:

Bold, caps and italics though.  If that won't convince you that an anecdote is a sound basis upon which to build an irrefutable argument, nothing will.

It's called creative writing.

And if that story doesn't convince you this ban on parents filming their own kids at galas is disproportionate cobblers. then nothing will convince you because you are, err, blinkered.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

25 minutes ago, Carl said:

For me, he just needed to conclude his post with "QED" and I'd have been 100% convinced...

I am 100% convinced, because I know I am right. It's basic risk probability. Any parent who thinks another parent videoing a gala race puts their child is any significant danger should not be driving them to said gala because they are far at more danger of death from that.

But, to be fair, these bans are not being driven by the parents of competitors, hardly any would be in favour of such a ban. No, they are usually just inflexible extensions of the "normal" ban on the use of cameras during a public swimming sessions.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

3 hours ago, Delayed said:

Irrelevant. Venues will still put their own restrictions on photographing if they wish. 

I think parents should decide the risk factor in photographing their own kids in public places.

 

The kids are not prisoners, or in a zoo!

 

And there's some dodgy people that get jobs looking after kids! 

 

 

 

[harvey19]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I am 100% convinced, because I know I am right. It's basic risk probability. Any parent who thinks another parent videoing a gala race puts their child is any significant danger should not be driving them to said gala because they are far at more danger of death from that.

But, to be fair, these bans are not being driven by the parents of competitors, hardly any would be in favour of such a ban. No, they are usually just inflexible extensions of the "normal" ban on the use of cameras during a public swimming sessions.

I once looked into why photography was banned in some public buildings.

It dated back to when flash powder  was used and there was a risk of fire.

[Annie Bynnol]

34 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I am 100% convinced, because I know I am right. It's basic risk probability . Any parent who thinks another parent videoing a gala race puts their child is any significant danger should not be driving them to said gala because they are far at more danger of death from that.

But, to be fair, these bans are not being driven by the parents of competitors, hardly any would be in favour of such a ban. No, they are usually just inflexible extensions of the "normal" ban on the use of cameras during a public swimming sessions.

   You confuse mathematics with your personal beliefs several times.

   "I am 100% convinced..." is personal belief, backed only by the assumption "... I know I am right". You have come to the conclusion by now not ever body thinks you are right.

    "(B)asic risk probability" requires at least two possible outcomes. Something you admit in the very next sentence when when you say "...significant danger ...". 

    You also misuse the word "...significant..." as it has a different meaning in the world of belief to that of mathematics.