A 10-Year Battery for AirTag

You'd think so, but America is the most armed country in the world and most of us have had something stolen. I think the overall sentiment is "I'm like 99% going to get away with this and pawn it for money" and they're right.

Not all AirTags exist within the US :)

There are other places? Really I just assumed he meant here because he mentioned people getting unnecessarily violent.

“and most of us have had something stolen”

I’m not sure that’s accurate. It may be true in large cities, but most people don’t live in NY or SF.

Yeah - the closest stat I can find works out to fewer than 2% of people per year are theft victims.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/191247/reported-larceny-....

Given the average lifespan is ~80yrs then the average chance you've had something stolen over over say 40 years is much higher than 2%. It's 2% per year so ~45% for 30yrs and 55% for 40yrs?

You're assuming independence, almost certainly incorrectly.

I've had multiple belongings stolen while a grad student on an Ivy League campus, presumably that is not a shit hole but one of the wealthiest areas of America.

meaning?

My point isn't that those number are exact. My point is 2% chance per year expands to a larger number over many years. So saying "most people have experienced theft" many not be that far off. 2% is 1 in 50 but 55% is more than 1 in 2. My personal experience is would be 10 or 11 in 55yrs depending on whether an attempt counts

bike, bike, bike, car radio, car radio, car radio, car, car radio, bike, camera/dashcam/kindle, attempt (broke window to check for loot but didn't find anything). Still cost $$$ to replace window so you could say my window was stolen.

Also I didn't just multiply by the number of years. The probably for 100yrs is 86% (not 100% and not 200%).

The events are not independent. Maybe the first time you leave your bike outside you learn that it will be stolen, and then you don't do that anymore, reducing your future risk.

Where do you live that has no crime?

The US has a monopoly on people getting unnecessarily violent? That seems like a trope - projecting the stats of a few zip codes onto a very large and diverse nation.

For most people, the chance they are a victim of theft (VOT) in year 1 is correlated to the chance they are a VOT in year 2. So the probability that they are a VOT at least once in those two years is NOT simply (1 - (1 - 2%)^2). That formula only works when the two events are independent, like two coin flips.

As an obviously extreme example, imagine a world where 98% the people live in zero-crime areas, and the rest live in places where they are robbed annually.

In such a world, the percentage of people who were a VOT in a single year would be 2%, and it would not rise as you broadened to multiple years. (The same 2% of people would be targeted over and over.)

This is all just a roundabout way of stating the unfortunate fact that some people live in bad areas.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience.

Wealthiest area might also be one of the most unequal, and thus be theft prone.

New York and California are not even in the top 10 of thefts per 100k residents: https://www.statista.com/statistics/232583/larceny-theft-rat...

yes, and that 2% per year average figure takes that into account. The percent for your life is higher. You got robbed, do something to make it go down, it gets lower. Over the course of the average life, it ends up at 2% per year. It's probably highest around 15 to 25yrs old (have possessions, get robbed, learn to do differently) and lower at the end (except for getting robbed by scams which often target the elderly)

Single data point but I moved from the UK to the US 30 years ago and the prevalence of stuff being stolen is two orders of magnitude lower.