It’s an older article, but the point stands!

  • EddoWagt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not sure what story you’re talking about, could you share a link?

      • PlexSheep@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes. To make it short, planes returning from the battlefield were often riddled with holes from bullets. Someone had to answer the question of where to put extra protection. The intuitive thing would be to put it where the bullet holes are, but if the plane returned with holes at these spots, that means these spots are not as critical. Therefore, the protection should be placed where no bullet holes are, as the plains that got shot there didn’t make it back.

    • Maslo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      https://medium.com/@penguinpress/an-excerpt-from-how-not-to-be-wrong-by-jordan-ellenberg-664e708cfc3d

      They give two good tldrs near the bottom of the article:

      The armor, said Wald, doesn’t go where the bullet holes are. It goes where the bullet holes aren’t

      If you go to the recovery room at the hospital, you’ll see a lot more people with bullet holes in their legs than people with bullet holes in their chests. But that’s not because people don’t get shot in the chest; it’s because the people who get shot in the chest don’t recover.

      I was drunk when I commented but I think I was trying to imply that the survivors can’t always tell the complete story.