It is really nothing compared to what will happen if the current international infrastructure supporting hospitals and food delivery breaks down.
Most people don't grow their own food, they buy it from a store. There's about a week, maybe two of fresh food in the system, depending on local population density and available suppliers. Maybe a month or two of dry goods.
Hospitals are highly dependent on consumables to provide care. In a month they're out of exam gloves, masks, sample tubes, hand sanitizer, antibiotics - then sanitation starts to break down and hospital-acquired infections start to ramp up. Less time for high-value items like anesthetics, immune suppressants and other specialty drugs. The volume of chlorine and isopropyl needed daily just to keep things clean will be a problem. Anything less than immediate life-threatening conditions starts getting turned away because the hospital is a source of danger for otherwise healthy people, and they might not have the resources to provide care anyway. The emergency room runs out of blood bags.
In the present, the things that keep people alive are dependent on just-in-time logistics systems. There's very little inventory stored anywhere, because it's cheaper to not store stuff. If the trade relationships break down and the supplies become unreliable, it falls apart. And it doesn't have to all come to a complete halt for people to die, it just has to become unstable so that sometimes the right things don't show up at the right places at the right times.
Systemic collapse would lead to orders of magnitude more deaths.
...except for, you know, all the people that die.
...and the penalties are enforced.
noai.duckduckgo.com
noai.duckduckgo.com
A crack in the foundation like this could mean that the water has been eroding the ground under the slab, causing it to be unsupported.
You need an engineer to assess the property and the foundation.
Chicago has 2.6 million people. This number of accidental deaths is 0.0042% of the population.
They scored a grade of 99.9958 on this test. Is reducing the accident rate even a realistic target? There are always going to be some incidents that you can't prevent, some circumstances that you can't predict.
I'm not saying the safety effort shouldn't be made, but 0 is not a realistic target in the real world. You can always try to address edge cases, but you can't actually eliminate them.
Ars: What would be the way that an administration should propose something like the Golden Dome? Not through an executive order? What process would you like to see?
Moulton: As a result of a strategic review and backed up by a lot of serious theory and analysis. The administration proposes a new solution and has hearings about it in front of Congress, where they are unafraid of answering tough questions. This administration is a bunch of cowards who can who refuse to answer tough questions in Congress because they know they can't back up their president's proposals.
Ars: I’m actually a little surprised we haven’t seen any sort of architecture yet. It’s been six months, and the administration has already missed a few of Trump’s deadlines for selecting an architecture.
Moulton: It’s hard to develop an architecture for something that doesn't make sense.
I think it's relevant that there doesn't seem to be any oversight for civilian safety in regard to experimental flying objects.
If a large-scale government space project doesn't get oversight (or consequences), how much is there going to be for a shipping business?
Um, what's with the personal attack dude?