3 ms·
No, I am telling you what the problem is with having the rate set at zero, which is what I have been doing the entire time. Using your terminology, you don't ge
by snapplebobapple 4y ago
No, I am telling you what the problem is with having the rate set at zero, which is what I have been doing the entire time. Using your terminology, you don't get extreme measures initially, you walk yourself to extreme measures because everything you change does not hit your goal rather than just calling it a day when you hit the inflection point where the costs of your policy are roughly equal to the benefits of your policy and there are no obviously better uses of your limited resources that you should be doing instead.
- pstuart 4y agoI don't think you're willfully misconstruing me, but you are nonetheless. You're manufacturing slippery slope reductions of a concept and therefore dismissing the concept. What should the goal of police departments of pet dogs killed by cops? Should they aim for 10,000? A million? Just a handful? A logical answer is "we want to avoid killing any pet dogs in the course of service" (also known as zero). Now they could take absurd actions to avoid that (leaving the scene whenever a dog is present), or they could add that to standardized training so that they're better prepared to deal with that situation. So without providing real-world examples of you concerns you are just offering up florid conjecture.