3 ms·
Its a game of diminishing returns. Assume there are 80% included in a game and 20% frozen out. Here it makes sense to change the rules of the game to include t
by schalab 8y ago
Its a game of diminishing returns.
Assume there are 80% included in a game and 20% frozen out. Here it makes sense to change the rules of the game to include the other 20%.
Yes it might slightly inconvenience the 80% but the switch from not being included at all to playing the game for the 20% is huge. So, overall it might be a net positive.
Problem is when you get to a 98/2 split. Is it worth it to inconvenience such a large majority for the benefit of a very small minority. And how much are you going to change the rules?
Is it worth the reduced enjoyment/efficiency of the game?
At some point the trade off will become too much, and even moral/emotional arguments will not be enough to silence the dissent.
- 2a0c40 8y agorelevant: Taleb's minority rule. cf. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- pjc50 8y agoIn this case it's more like a 50/50 split.
- mobjack 8y agoIs it really that big of an inconvenience if they don't include gender pronouns in automated email responses? How much revenue would Google be losing over such a decision? Even if something only affects 2% of the population, the cost of getting it wrong may not be worth the benefits.