5 ms·

How many do you think is the appropriate number? Surely not zero, since this can only be approached in the limit of infinite expenditures. So what principle w

How many do you think is the appropriate number? Surely not zero, since this can only be approached in the limit of infinite expenditures. So what principle would you use to tell?

420codebro 7y ago
He has no principle. Just politics wrapped in environmentalism. Don’t dig too deep - there isn’t much to find.
Karrot_Kream 7y ago
> Surely not zero, since this can only be approached in the limit of infinite expenditures. What proof do you have of the lower bound here?
- viraptor 7y ago
  There's no physical device with zero failures over an unbounded time. Whether it's human errors or material degradation, things will fail at some point. Materials also have production faults which can make them break on the first usage. Everything has a non-zero chance of failing. The "infinite expenditures" part comes in because you can introduce redundancies and fail-safes, but those introduce complexity / more work / more materials, which have extra costs. Then you need to spend time/money making sure the whole system works together / testing failure modes. But that may also fail, etc.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    There's at least one (idealistic) method to reduce the number of pipelines leaks and explosions to zero. This will also eliminate the risk of another Lac Megantic disaster, and reduce emissions to zero! It's just not an immediate-term proposition.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    This issue is too theoretical to contribute to deciding what should be acceptable. I will open the bidding by suggesting that Canada's frequency of dangerous pipeline failures should not exceed its frequency of airliner crashes.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      I assumed the parent referred to the zero lower bound. A realistic lower bound discussion is more complex/interesting of course.
      - Karrot_Kream 7y ago
        I meant to segue into a realistic lower bound, not a zero bound, though I definitely wasn't clear about it.

How many do you think is the appropriate number? Surely not zero, since this can only be approached in the limit of infinite expenditures. So what principle would you use to tell?

420codebro 7y ago

He has no principle. Just politics wrapped in environmentalism. Don’t dig too deep - there isn’t much to find.

Karrot_Kream 7y ago

> Surely not zero, since this can only be approached in the limit of infinite expenditures. What proof do you have of the lower bound here?

viraptor 7y ago
There's no physical device with zero failures over an unbounded time. Whether it's human errors or material degradation, things will fail at some point. Materials also have production faults which can make them break on the first usage. Everything has a non-zero chance of failing. The "infinite expenditures" part comes in because you can introduce redundancies and fail-safes, but those introduce complexity / more work / more materials, which have extra costs. Then you need to spend time/money making sure the whole system works together / testing failure modes. But that may also fail, etc.
- SECProto 7y ago
  There's at least one (idealistic) method to reduce the number of pipelines leaks and explosions to zero. This will also eliminate the risk of another Lac Megantic disaster, and reduce emissions to zero! It's just not an immediate-term proposition.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  This issue is too theoretical to contribute to deciding what should be acceptable. I will open the bidding by suggesting that Canada's frequency of dangerous pipeline failures should not exceed its frequency of airliner crashes.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    I assumed the parent referred to the zero lower bound. A realistic lower bound discussion is more complex/interesting of course.
    - Karrot_Kream 7y ago
      I meant to segue into a realistic lower bound, not a zero bound, though I definitely wasn't clear about it.