[kqr]

You're comparing "reality where accident happened" to "an alternate reality where everything is exactly the same but the accident did not happen" and this is not a sensible comparison.

The reality we have produced the accident. You can't have that reality and have it not produce the accident, because it was set up to produce the accident. Proof: it produced the accident.

To avoid the accident, you need an alternative reality that is sufficiently different so as not to produce the accident, and some of those differences may well have resulted in lower profit overall.

(You may argue that you're able to set up an alternate reality that does not produce the accident and results in higher profit overall – that's a completely different argument, but it also requires you to specify some more details to make it a falsifiable hypothesis. Without those details we can not guarantee a higher profit in that alternate reality.)

[furyofantares]

And to add to that - the number is almost always wrong because people tend to just count the money hose throughput times the downtime. But many of the people who would have spent money on the downtime will do so later. I guess maybe that's not true of advertising revenue? Although I imagine advertisers tend to have some monthly spend.

[dalmo3]

Sure, the probability that things that have happened will have happened is 1.

The real test for hard determinists is being able to conclude that the probability of things that will happen is also 1. At that point there's no such thing as "falsifiable".