| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 8 hours ago | |
Would you use anything that was only 16% effective for its claimed purpose? “Tylenol stops headaches in 16% of people” - it’s huge, right? That’s millions of people we’re talking about. Would you use it? | ||
| ▲ | asadotzler 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
99% of users don't even know they're being protected. There's no promise except "we work to make browsing safer" and cutting even 5% of malicious sites from a user's experience is an unmitigated win for that user at the low false positive rate Safe Browsing offers. | ||
| ▲ | NekkoDroid 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
If the other options would just straight up kill innocent bystanders (e.g. false positives for legit shops) I think that is a tradeoff I am willing to make. | ||
| ▲ | HeatrayEnjoyer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Countless medications have <16% efficacy rate. | ||
| ▲ | mock-possum 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Idk why not? What’re the side effects? | ||