3 ms·
To them a false negative is worse than a false positive, for precisely the reason you describe: it simply doesn't matter how many false positives you have, but
by saulrh 10y ago
To them a false negative is worse than a false positive, for precisely the reason you describe: it simply doesn't matter how many false positives you have, but the very first false negative destroys your company. Their optimization function is not fire safety. It's making money, which is only mostly associated with fire safety.
- piotrkaminski 10y agoRight, so I wonder how we could change the incentives so their optimization function is a little more socially responsible? Perhaps a law that allows civil lawsuits for false positive alarms would help, but I'd be afraid of unexpected side-effects.