> I realised I didn’t have a good argument for why it was wrong. Every axiom and intermediate proposition were ideas that I agreed with. And it wasn’t so simple

> I realised I didn’t have a good argument for why it was wrong. Every axiom and intermediate proposition were ideas that I agreed with. And it wasn’t so simple as the conclusion being flat out mistaken So... its pretty clear that time is poorly understood in the axioms presented, and the author comes to that conclusion at the halfway mark. And frankly so is risk. But nobody--myself included-- wants to read an accurate axiomatic representation of probability distributions and discount rates. But in so doing I expect that the bit about "skin in the game" would be hard to ground. The argument is that if you have 100 percent of your wealth tied up in one enterprise you are going to be very careful. Very risk averse. But what is the optimal level of risk taking? Zero? It's not a hypothetical. Especially in tech startups, projects can have wide error bars on completion time. Short runways mean you can really only pick from among the shortest options in the solution space, and longer implementation plans are discounted. Maybe thats good. But it seems like a huge shortcut to say "the shortest path is optimal."