Mixed feelings about this article. > The potency of my solution lies in the idea that people do not consciously wish to harm themselves; I feel much safer on a

Mixed feelings about this article. > The potency of my solution lies in the idea that people do not consciously wish to harm themselves; I feel much safer on a plane because the pilot, and not a drone, is at the controls. What about myopia, self-delusion, panic, sheer intellectual dishonesty or even disability, and all the other assorted biases that afflict human judgment? Humans hurt themselves all the time. In fact, there are instances when putting more pressure or increasing the (financial) incentives hurts performance and increases risk. > I believe that “less is more” — simple heuristics are necessary for complex problems. So instead of thousands of pages of regulation, we should enforce a basic principle: Bonuses and bailouts should never mix. Having said that, I'm still all for the use and (re?)discovery of heuristics in regulation, combined with judgment on the part of the enforcer. It's high time we moved past the game of who can outlawyer who. There is a reason that posts like yesterday's knife maker capture the attention of many people these days and why firms like Apple or Leica are so successful these days. Life is becoming so complex, we can't write every contingency into a law; so much is becoming possible today that we need more and more conscious, i.e. editorial constraint.