> sunk cost and shouldn't even matter Shouldn't but does. It has it's own fallacy section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk

> sunk cost and shouldn't even matter Shouldn't but does. It has it's own fallacy section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_t... Also, not falling for the fallacy means admitting defeat. And the higher up one is in an organization, the worse admitting defeat is for your career. Having a product dead-ended by keeping on working on it forever is much better for manager/government official careers. So sadly, the fact that other people (above you) fall for the fallacy makes falling for it yourself rational in a lot of cases. Instead just systematically lower the priority, but never to zero. In anything but a startup, I would treat any sunk cost above a minimal level as a firm commitment to continue at any cost. I would never have done so 5 years ago, but ...