3 ms·
Eh, pretty sure there's more than one moral there. No reason to ignore the "don't run off half-cocked spreading information you haven't confirmed or may not me
by kbenson 5y ago
Eh, pretty sure there's more than one moral there. No reason to ignore the "don't run off half-cocked spreading information you haven't confirmed or may not mean what you think" just because there's another lesson in there also.
- inopinatus 5y agoThis is the lie told by the failed managers of the community in which the chicken lived, hoping to shift the blame for their own poor attention to contingency planning onto a chicken. If you have an early warning device with a high false positive rate, you don’t avoid catastrophe by ignoring the warning.
- randomswede 5y agoNo, you don't ignore the warning to avoid a catastrophe, you ignore the warning to avoid alert fatigue, burnout and other bad effects. If your only early warning device has a sufficiently high false positive rate, scrap it, or find another early warning device with a sufficiently different set of false positives and then require both of them to alert, before you pay attention.