3 ms·

The best part of this thread is that the article is about why it's really hard to understand the cost differences, while the top comments all offer unsupported

• FussyZeus 7y ago
  Mmmm, it's a good part, but I think the best part is all the people who have it figured out because in all of recorded history, nobody thought of checking into things like the costs of corruption. It's nice that the city planners include it as a line item, why don't we look there?
• golemiprague 7y ago
  Because it is a bit stupid from the writer to complain about it, you don't need to know the absolute cost of things, just the relative cost a specific procedure can be done. He brings an example for the amount of people operating a boring machine, it is just obvious that less people means less salaries, you don't need to calculate the absolute cost, just find if there is a way to reduce the amount of workers. Same goes for regulations, it seems like in other countries there is less litigation and more common sense applied, you can just compare it to being strict and going to court for every stupid thing and see what's better. The HN crowd is actually right here, when you got a too complex system that you can't calculate you need to go with your gut feeling and everybody actually know what the problems are, someone should be courageous enough to just make the necessary changes without a stupid research to back it up, in an ironic way doing this research is actually the core of the problem itself.