Typical Pool Pax

Another Uber Driver

Well-Known Member
Moderator
It is low on the reliability list compared to others. Statistically, only foam (used with nothing else), rhythm and the sponge are less effective, and, even those "less effective" numbers are at the low end of a range. The high ends of those ranges are higher than interruptus. The provided link also states that some skill is required for interruptus to be effective. All of this information is found by clicking the "See All" button on the website in the provided link.

Thus, it is not too effective.
 

UberATL30039

Active Member
It is low on the reliability list compared to others. Statistically, only foam (used with nothing else), rhythm and the sponge are less effective, and, even those "less effective" numbers are at the low end of a range. The high ends of those ranges are higher than interruptus. The provided link also states that some skill is required for interruptus to be effective. All of this information is found by clicking the "See All" button on the website in the provided link.

Thus, it is not too effective.
I don't want to use the word "disagree" because I don't think we're in two different worlds here, but you're essentially arguing for a 1-3% effectiveness difference. Pull-out is about 96% effective when used correctly versus condoms which are, about 99% when used correctly (which is, unfortunately, not exactly common between using the wrong types of lubricant, incorrect application, double layering, etc). The largest advantage most of these varieties of controceptives have is their ability to prevent or reduce the transmission of STDs and low skill requirement.

Statistics are a beautiful thing when applied correctly. A 3% variance is marginal and overall rather safely ignored. While most think that means it would take 96 tries to conceive if you pull-out every time, the reality is the odds reset after every encounter.

There are a ton of advantages to other methods of contraceptives... But in regards to birth control it really is minimial. But in terms of overall safety and public health I will conceed to your points.
 

3.75

Well-Known Member
I like the No New Request button but on this I would've done my damndest to clowncar them
In my less experienced days, this was my go to method. Pool meant a tour of DC. I didn't care if it took me an hour to complete it, I made sure to hit every hot demand neighborhood possible. I learned early on that X trips were shorter than pool because of the price difference.

...............and not very reliable...................................
Ironically just like pool. Everyone expects to ride alone but little do they know they will receive the clown car experience.
 

KPax

Well-Known Member
I don't want to use the word "disagree" because I don't think we're in two different worlds here, but you're essentially arguing for a 1-3% effectiveness difference. Pull-out is about 96% effective when used correctly versus condoms which are, about 99% when used correctly (which is, unfortunately, not exactly common between using the wrong types of lubricant, incorrect application, double layering, etc). The largest advantage most of these varieties of controceptives have is their ability to prevent or reduce the transmission of STDs and low skill requirement.

Statistics are a beautiful thing when applied correctly. A 3% variance is marginal and overall rather safely ignored. While most think that means it would take 96 tries to conceive if you pull-out every time, the reality is the odds reset after every encounter.

There are a ton of advantages to other methods of contraceptives... But in regards to birth control it really is minimial. But in terms of overall safety and public health I will conceed to your points.
downloadfile.jpg
 

Another Uber Driver

Well-Known Member
Moderator
but you're essentially arguing for a 1-3% effectiveness difference.

Pull-out is about 96% effective when used correctly versus

condoms which are, about 99% when used correctly

The largest advantage low skill requirement.

Statistics are a beautiful thing when because they can be manipulated and applied in almost any manner to support almost any argument correctly.

A 3% variance is marginal and overall rather safely ignored.

According to the website in the provided link, under the "if" condition; "asterisk" condition, if you will; you have a ninety-six per-cent effectiveness for interruptus vs. eighty-five for the raincoat. Mind you, this is only under "asterisk" condition. According to the site, the overall effective rate for interruptus; the "bottom line" condition, if you will' is seventy-eight per-cent. That is a seven per-cent difference; four per-centage points more than three. I suppose that there might be those who could suggest that this is an "insignificant" deviation from an "insignificant" difference. Those who put faith in the S.L. Clemens statement about statistics (which statement Mr. Clemens attributed to B. Disraeli) might point to that as support for their faith in that point of view.............but, I stray..........................

Two things argue for shying from the "asterisk" and going with the "bottom line". You can consider the macrocosm, and draw on your life experience, or, you can go to the microcosm that is understandable to the posters to these Boards: the Rocket Scientists that we all fetch when we drive. Given my experience, I would suspect that there are far more who fail to apply it correctly than there are who actually apply interruptus correctly; hence the disparity between "asterisk" and "bottom line"; eighteen percentage points or five "insignificant" deviations from an "insignificant" difference.

I am hard put to comprehend that there could be any difference, "significant" or otherwise, between those who apply interruptus correctly and those who use the raincoat correctly.

Given the effectiveness of either of the two, it appears that more than a few do not have even the "low skills required" to use the same. Fifteen and twenty-two are not insignificant.

FIFY

Three per-cent might, indeed, be "insignificant and safely ignored", but, putting faith in "asterisk" conditions is ignoring real conditions, which ain't uh-zackly none too safe.



In my less experienced days, this was my go to method. Pool meant a tour of DC. I didn't care if it took me an hour to complete it, I made sure to hit every hot demand neighborhood possible. I learned early on that X trips were shorter than pool because of the price difference.



Ironically just like pool. Everyone expects to ride alone but little do they know they will receive the clown car experience.

I have been truly amazed at some of the scenic routes on which the U-Pool GPS directs the driver. I suspect that Fubar does this deliberately to increase opportunities to add more passengers. This allows it to collect a full fare from the customer and render unto the driver his paltry dollar.




BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH
-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH
-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-hah-hah-haaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top