^Based on the last article posted, we have at least one person involved with this making semi-veiled lawsuit threats. I'm guessing they aren't particularly interested in seeing this incident end up on their show.
Yes, as I already said, I am aware of the facts of the case. I'm just saying that
it would be nice if things were different.
I'm not sure about that. I think the minivan owner did say that his kids were in the minivan a few moments earlier; but if the cannonball had been fired earlier, the odds are that the wind would've been different or it would've bounced differently and thus followed a different trajectory anyway.
Ehhhh,,,,
maybe. But I think it's just as likely the cannonball would have followed the same trajectory, or to make the point I was trying to make more dramatic sounding imagine the van arriving a few minutes later.
First off, given how much air the cannonball flew through, I'd say it's extremely unlikely it would've followed the exact same trajectory unless the air had been absolutely still throughout the entire path. And since it reportedly shot across a busy road, there would've been a lot of wind from the traffic, and the different traffic patterns at a different moment would've probably made a difference in the wind currents.
Second, if we're considering the postulate that the moment of firing, the arrival of the van, or any other factor was different, we can't exclude the possibility that other factors were different as well, and indeed they would've had to be. Given the incredible fluke of the cannonball misfiring and bouncing off the hill the way it did, if any variable were altered, it probably wouldn't have happened at all, or would've happened very differently. This wasn't a predictable event that could be repeated, but an exceptional concatenation of circumstances. So it isn't really meaningful to postulate the same event happening a moment earlier or later. It only happened because of the circumstances that came together at that exact moment.
Most importantly, being "dramatic" is not something we should aspire to if we want to understand the facts of the case. Drama generally entails exaggeration of facts and distortion of probabilities. It's certainly "dramatic" to say that the cannonball "almost" hit someone, but it's more accurate and truthful to say that the probability of it hitting someone was quite low. Certainly it would've been awful if someone had been hit, and certainly it's important to take precautions to minimize that risk, but what actually happened -- only property being hurt and not people -- was the most probable outcome, given the facts on hand.
The point being that the cannonball accident here very nearly was fatal because any number of variables could've cause some serious injury. If the people in the apartment had been up and walking around, if the van had gotten home later, if someone was walking down the street.
And that's a misunderstanding of probability, putting "drama" above accuracy. If I get a 9, 10, jack, queen, and 3, then I could say that I "very nearly" got a king-high straight, but that doesn't remotely mean I was more likely to get a straight than a losing hand. Close doesn't count. There are a lot of combinations of cards that are "close" to a winning hand, but they're still losing hands. And the fact that there are so many "near misses" makes a near miss much more probable than a winning hand. So saying I "very nearly" won may have emotional resonance, may feel like a truth, but it's factually misleading.
To make another analogy, let's go back to my high school days and my extremely inadequate sporting skills. I recall a day when we had unstructured time in gym class and I tried picking up a basketball and tossing it toward the hoop. I got "very near" the hoop dozens of times, but I don't think I sank the ball at all -- maybe once in dozens of tries. Because it's relatively easy to get "very near" a small target, but a lot harder to hit it exactly. The probability of getting "very near" is much higher than the probability of a hit. So calling something "very near" is misleading in terms of the actual probabilities involved. There's a reason why close only counts in horseshoes.
Yes, there are countless variables that could've happened differently, but that's exactly why the probability of anyone being hit was so low. Sure, I could say that "if" I'd been dealt a king instead of a 3, I would've won the hand. But that "if" is just one possibility out of many. There were a whole lot of other cards I could've been dealt that wouldn't have changed the outcome at all. So selecting for those few possibilities that would've brought about the outcome you're proposing and ignoring all the many, many more possibilities that would not have done so is misrepresenting the probabilities.
What we're talking about here is an unaimed projectile and a finite number of targets in a very large volume. It should be self-evident that if those targets are moving rather than standing still, it makes it even
less likely that they'd be hit. Because it introduces even more possible permutations into the calculation, so that finite number of permutations resulting in injury becomes an even smaller percentage of the total.
So you're right that there are multiple variables that could've been different, but you're drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from that fact. The more variables that are involved, the lower the probability of someone being hurt.
And let's also consider how precedent factors into a probabilistic analysis. The Mythbusters misfiring a cannonball that bounced into a residential neighborhood is something that happened
once and almost certainly never will again. Meteorite impacts, on the other hand, happen approximately 500 times a year, every year, throughout human history. And yet there are only two documented cases of meteorite impacts causing injury, zero cases of fatality. So no, it's really not all that amazing that nobody was hurt. It may feel that way, but a scientific appraisal shows that, as usual, our feelings aren't the best guide for understanding objective reality.
I don't unconditionally accept the statement that kids had been in the car moments earlier. A lot of people are prone to exaggeration. "Moments earlier" might have been as much as an hour earlier prior to an urge to dramatize the danger of the scenario.
Also a good point, and another reason why being "dramatic" is not a good way to get at the facts of the matter.
This is not to say that I don't understand or sympathize with the feelings of the people involved. I know I'd be spooked if it had happened to me, no matter what reason tells me. And of course improbable things do sometimes happen, and if someone actually had been hurt by this or worse, it would've been terrible and tragic. But that's all the more reason we should be glad that probability was in favor of nobody getting hurt. Probability worked in everyone's favor this time, so we should respect and appreciate probability instead of misrepresenting it for the sake of being "dramatic" and stirring up fears.
I was there for an event with the Sheriff's Office just last year. I had no idea it was the same location as the bomb range.
