6 ms·

I've read this several times over the years. My favourite quote is: > Make the secret a lot more trouble than the trick seems worth. You will be fooled by a tr

I've read this several times over the years. My favourite quote is: > Make the secret a lot more trouble than the trick seems worth. You will be fooled by a trick if it involves more time, money and practice than you (or any other sane onlooker) would be willing to invest.

xtiansimon 5y ago
This principle works in art also.
- omk 5y ago
  Not a security expert, but I believe security applies too. It is difficult to claim a system as 100% secure. So long as what is being secured is less worth than the effort to hack into, you are good.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hannob 5y ago
    I've seen people think like that who learned the hard way they were wrong. The crucial thing people tend to miss: Attacks scale. They can be automated. Your blog may not be worth the trouble hacking it, but hacking thousands of private blogs and abusing them for spam and only having to work out the attack once is.
- ta988 5y ago
  Works in software development as well. I've seen magicians make piles of money disappear by switching to k8s. We never figured out how they did it.
  - herodoturtle 5y ago
    David Dockerfield
bgroat 5y ago
There's a wonderful British television story called "Jonathan Creek" were the eponymous Johnathan is a stage-hand and magic trick developer who helps a reporter solve locked-room mysteries. In the pilot episode he says something to the effect of, "It's not magic. It's never magic. People just can't imagine, or can't be bothered to do this much bloody work"
- maxwelldone 5y ago
  Jonathan Creek is a great show, at least the first few seasons. I like the portrayal of Jonathan; calm and unassuming.
  - lowercased 5y ago
    First few seasons were really good. Chemistry changed and stories went downhill a bit when Caroline Quentin left. I'll need to dig that series out to rewatch :)
  - bgroat 5y ago
    Jonathan remains in my mind the most perfect version of a "smart person" in media. Deep domain expertise, with plodding, methodical deliberative thinking until he finds a solution. No flashy mental superpowers, just patience, trial-and-error and lateral thinking.
mbg721 5y ago
Penn and Teller are afaik the best in the business at highlighting how much being a magician relies on steering the audience much more than the quality of any individual trick.
1ibsq 5y ago
That reminds me of a quote from Trumps 'the art of the deal', that goes something like: the receipt for success is under-promise and over-deliver.
- georgemcbay 5y ago
  I have never read Art of the Deal, but that idea is a lot older than that book. I mean, even Scotty from Star Trek verifiably beat Trump's ghost writer to the punch on that wisdom by years and it was already an ancient idea before that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9SVhg6ZENw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9SVhg6ZENw
  - 1ibsq 5y ago
    Probably yes, but I remember it from the book I mentioned. That's all I wanted to share.
- sophacles 5y ago
  The real magic trick was Trump getting you to attribute the idea to him. Like all magic tricks (and all Trumps): it's just a con.
  - 1ibsq 5y ago
    Please re-read what I wrote. I said I remember it from this book. Not that he came up with it, nor that he wrote the book, nor that I am contend with the quote, nor that I like it. Neither in one direction nor in the other. I hoped this was a place on the internet where I don't have to counter every possible misunderstanding beforehand. Is this about politics? If so, let me make it clear. I like to read books written by people I disagree with. Please don't misunderstand me, following is not comparable, but I have Ayn Rand and Hitler on my shelve as well.
taneq 5y ago
This reminds me of a principle I've seen in action many times, which is that usually even seemingly highly invested parties aren't really 'playing for keeps'. Think of heists - if your treasure is worth $X million dollars then you should be prepared for attacks costing $X - $attack_cost. Are you an art thief and is your Van Gough in transit worth $1.5mil? Be pretty dumb not to spend $1mil to recover it for your team of 3, then, right? But nobody does. And nobody spends $1mil to protect said artwork. It's like we collectively agree that official valuations are BS.
- aaroninsf 5y ago
  This is an interesting idea. I am now curious if there is a formalization of this idea of variable value which seems to be a function of some kind of friction/work requirement. And I imagine is a function of scale relative to the context. What I mean is, if you're an auction house or a major museum, with an operating budget in the $100Ms or more, at some point it is at least cognitively simpler (if not prudent) to accept a certain amount of shrinkage/fraud/loss etc., which you might prevent with even minimal effort, because the minimal effort is too costly in some other way. Cognitively. Administratively. Whatever. I remember learning from relatives who had worked in the FBI that their had been in their day thresholds for what level of check fraud merited investigation. Below a certain level it was not a good use of limited resources to waste time chasing it. This has an interesting follow-on effect, that it was worth consistent effort to obscure that actuality and promote belief in a much more comprehensively aware and interested (and competent) FBI than existed, because that was itself effective in discouraging a certain amount of crime. "Not worth the risk" is miscalculated when you overestimate the risk. And you have little ability to test the system. I find this interesting because it is a reminder that e.g. value is not BS, exactly; but it's multidimensionally contingent and contextual. Which I guess you can see in other places all the time but this is an interesting angle. Not least because it suggests where to look for rich veins of "arbitrage," the places you can exploit differences in relative value. A la Superman III!
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Risk/reward. Spend $1M on a heist? It better have a 100% chance of working. Any heist can fail, for a number of reasons. Plus the risk side isn’t just financial — jail time is a heavy risk too.

xtiansimon 5y ago

This principle works in art also.

omk 5y ago
Not a security expert, but I believe security applies too. It is difficult to claim a system as 100% secure. So long as what is being secured is less worth than the effort to hack into, you are good.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hannob 5y ago
  I've seen people think like that who learned the hard way they were wrong. The crucial thing people tend to miss: Attacks scale. They can be automated. Your blog may not be worth the trouble hacking it, but hacking thousands of private blogs and abusing them for spam and only having to work out the attack once is.
ta988 5y ago
Works in software development as well. I've seen magicians make piles of money disappear by switching to k8s. We never figured out how they did it.
- herodoturtle 5y ago
  David Dockerfield

bgroat 5y ago

There's a wonderful British television story called "Jonathan Creek" were the eponymous Johnathan is a stage-hand and magic trick developer who helps a reporter solve locked-room mysteries. In the pilot episode he says something to the effect of, "It's not magic. It's never magic. People just can't imagine, or can't be bothered to do this much bloody work"

maxwelldone 5y ago
Jonathan Creek is a great show, at least the first few seasons. I like the portrayal of Jonathan; calm and unassuming.
- lowercased 5y ago
  First few seasons were really good. Chemistry changed and stories went downhill a bit when Caroline Quentin left. I'll need to dig that series out to rewatch :)
- bgroat 5y ago
  Jonathan remains in my mind the most perfect version of a "smart person" in media. Deep domain expertise, with plodding, methodical deliberative thinking until he finds a solution. No flashy mental superpowers, just patience, trial-and-error and lateral thinking.

mbg721 5y ago

Penn and Teller are afaik the best in the business at highlighting how much being a magician relies on steering the audience much more than the quality of any individual trick.

1ibsq 5y ago

That reminds me of a quote from Trumps 'the art of the deal', that goes something like: the receipt for success is under-promise and over-deliver.

georgemcbay 5y ago
I have never read Art of the Deal, but that idea is a lot older than that book. I mean, even Scotty from Star Trek verifiably beat Trump's ghost writer to the punch on that wisdom by years and it was already an ancient idea before that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9SVhg6ZENw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9SVhg6ZENw
- 1ibsq 5y ago
  Probably yes, but I remember it from the book I mentioned. That's all I wanted to share.
sophacles 5y ago
The real magic trick was Trump getting you to attribute the idea to him. Like all magic tricks (and all Trumps): it's just a con.
- 1ibsq 5y ago
  Please re-read what I wrote. I said I remember it from this book. Not that he came up with it, nor that he wrote the book, nor that I am contend with the quote, nor that I like it. Neither in one direction nor in the other. I hoped this was a place on the internet where I don't have to counter every possible misunderstanding beforehand. Is this about politics? If so, let me make it clear. I like to read books written by people I disagree with. Please don't misunderstand me, following is not comparable, but I have Ayn Rand and Hitler on my shelve as well.

taneq 5y ago

This reminds me of a principle I've seen in action many times, which is that usually even seemingly highly invested parties aren't really 'playing for keeps'. Think of heists - if your treasure is worth $X million dollars then you should be prepared for attacks costing $X - $attack_cost. Are you an art thief and is your Van Gough in transit worth $1.5mil? Be pretty dumb not to spend $1mil to recover it for your team of 3, then, right? But nobody does. And nobody spends $1mil to protect said artwork. It's like we collectively agree that official valuations are BS.

aaroninsf 5y ago
This is an interesting idea. I am now curious if there is a formalization of this idea of variable value which seems to be a function of some kind of friction/work requirement. And I imagine is a function of scale relative to the context. What I mean is, if you're an auction house or a major museum, with an operating budget in the $100Ms or more, at some point it is at least cognitively simpler (if not prudent) to accept a certain amount of shrinkage/fraud/loss etc., which you might prevent with even minimal effort, because the minimal effort is too costly in some other way. Cognitively. Administratively. Whatever. I remember learning from relatives who had worked in the FBI that their had been in their day thresholds for what level of check fraud merited investigation. Below a certain level it was not a good use of limited resources to waste time chasing it. This has an interesting follow-on effect, that it was worth consistent effort to obscure that actuality and promote belief in a much more comprehensively aware and interested (and competent) FBI than existed, because that was itself effective in discouraging a certain amount of crime. "Not worth the risk" is miscalculated when you overestimate the risk. And you have little ability to test the system. I find this interesting because it is a reminder that e.g. value is not BS, exactly; but it's multidimensionally contingent and contextual. Which I guess you can see in other places all the time but this is an interesting angle. Not least because it suggests where to look for rich veins of "arbitrage," the places you can exploit differences in relative value. A la Superman III!
thehappypm 5y ago
Risk/reward. Spend $1M on a heist? It better have a 100% chance of working. Any heist can fail, for a number of reasons. Plus the risk side isn’t just financial — jail time is a heavy risk too.