|
|
|
|
|
by nwallin
2486 days ago
|
|
Ok I agree with you. Fine great. What are those numbers? The "drive it home" point of this article is a picture of a grieving mother flipping through a scrapbook looking at pictures of her dead kid. One of ten dead people caused by Amazon's drivers since 2015. 27 people per year are killed by lightning. Every death is a tragedy, but I'm not that concerned about something that is an order of magnitude less deadly that lightening. Driving a car is three orders of magnitude more deadly than lightening, but it doesn't scare me enough to prevent me from from hopping into my car 2-5 times per day. Spare me the pearls, show me the numbers. |
|
The qualitative case the article is making is this:
1. Amazon enforces brutal delivery speeds, giving drivers huge incentives to behave recklessly (and, in fact, rewarding the most reckless drivers).
2. Amazon profits from this.
3. People are harmed (sometimes in mild ways, like getting stuck in traffic, but sometimes by dying).
4. Amazon aggressively refuses financial, legal, or moral responsibility for the harm that's caused, sometimes suing to get away from it.
Even if it's "just" one person and lightning is more dangerous, the point is that Amazon is creating danger that would not otherwise exist, profiting from it, and refusing to be pay the costs.
It seems like almost no one commenting on this article read it.