• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d gladly trade leg room for a somewhat increased risk of death.

    That would be “made better” to me.

    Better is a useless metric.

    • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They sold flight insurance, life insurance policies you bought at kiosks in the airport, into the 70s. No thanks.

    • MoreThanCorrect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand your sentiment. On the other hand, I would rather my son have an hour of slight discomfort but arrive safely than be a fatality statistic.

      There is a feasible middle ground that is not realistically going to happen however. Slightly increasing personal space and comfort in the newer, safer planes without squeezing every possible seat in in the name of profit.

      “Better” does need to defined to not be ambiguous. To me a good definition to use in this thread would be “the net changes over time are objectively an improvement for the use”. I think that my middle ground would firmly be “better” but in the current state it is only strictly better for those owning the planes.