4 ms·
Yes, it's terrible that politicians in the us at least were doing their utmost to say this isn't a real problem because they didn't want to hurt the stock marke
by NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Yes, it's terrible that politicians in the us at least were doing their utmost to say this isn't a real problem because they didn't want to hurt the stock market and impact their re-election changes. But there's another side to testing things to failure in the real world, people can die. There are vulnerable people of every stripe. Unlike me they may barely get enough food, barely be able to pay that apt that depends on people going to a restaurant, barely have a way to get their medical care.
Most people aren't as fortunate as us computer programmers. I can get a job in a few days, even with the corona virus, not true of restaurant workers. And even some of us in the "programmer class" are struggling.
Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Some stress testing is good, but how to do it without killing the vulnerable. Less stress, more often. I think regular random border closures or brief, targeted disruptions of small parts of supply chains would do wonders to curb over-JIT-ting of the economy, while not hurting too many people too much. That said, I worry it's too little - it doesn't address head-on the incentives that create vulnerable supply chains.
- MR4D 7y agoWe do that (kindof) with airports every time there is a hurricane. Somehow that needs to be woven into a bigger fabric. I wonder if there is a way to create simultaneous small pains randomly. For instance, a hurricane and a cell phone outage would really suck.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoFor the past few years we've had almost random border closures, I hadn't thought of it that way. But they do expose horrors, like the kidnappers that take people away when they are turned away from the us border into a hellhole or organized extortion or we kill you.