4 ms·

Evil and blame free do not necessarily follow from acknowledging that some level of risk is acceptable.

• jhayward 7y ago
  This is a non-statement intended to deflect into the abstract and away from actual consequences. Policies and regulations aren't made in some Platonic ideal universe, they are made in specific, factual circumstances. Come back to us when you can talk about how a specific "acceptable" level of risk does not involve enabling evil actors, and indemnified doers for a specific policy area. Then we'll talk about the specific things you find acceptable, and just whose death and suffering you will trade for profit.
  • bumby 7y ago
    I don't read their statements the same way you do. The way they come across to me is that there needs to be a discussion of risk grounded in the understanding that in many (most?) domains, zero risk is unattainable. It's like the idea of the FDA setting limits to the amount of insect contaminates allowed in food. At first, it seems disturbing until you realize that if they put a zero tolerance policy in place, there would be near-endless grounds to sue every food manufacturer out of business.
    • malandrew 7y ago
      > in many (most?) domains, zero risk is unattainable. Not only is it unattainable, it's actively counterproductive to try and achieve because of unexamined and unintended consequences.