3 ms·

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. There is enough food to go around 2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary

• MichaelZuo 4y ago
  If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument. The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited. But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question: "How is this assessment made when food is limited?
  • jelly 4y ago
    Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
    • MichaelZuo 4y ago
      > Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. This makes sense, thanks for actually writing an easy to follow explanation. > If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help. Can you explain how the second follows the first?
• thefounder 4y ago
  I think this is more about the money rather than food