4 ms·

In our case we are a heavily regulated industry and the level of coordination, governance and compliance that is required to make change is shocking! I agree t

In our case we are a heavily regulated industry and the level of coordination, governance and compliance that is required to make change is shocking! I agree that it's good if it's possible to avoid all that and still deliver what you need to! Also agree that many people simply can't stand working in really heavyweight environments. While I dont love it, I can live with it.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yep! I think, somewhat humorously for how this thread started - which was entirely mea culpa! - our perspectives on this are pretty closely aligned. One thing I think is that a lot (though not all!) of the requirements imposed in heavily-regulated industries are actively counter-productive, because they more effectively introduce friction on positive changes than risky ones. But it's basically impossible to strike the exact right balance between mitigating tail risks, which is critical, vs. introducing counter-productive friction. So I have sympathy, I just also find it very frustrating to work in such environments.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Yeah, we aren't too far apart! It's why I like HN, you can actually have a civilised conversation :) Friction certainly makes it harder to introduce positive change. I don't think it makes it easier to make riskier ones though, but you often can't do everything you'd like to get done.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Just to clarify, I didn't mean regulatory friction makes it easier to do things that are risky. I think regulation is pretty much entirely successful at making that harder. What I meant is that, in my view, regulations that reduce the chance of tail risks by let's say X% often seem to increase the friction on making improvements by more like say 2X%. Of course this isn't scientific or anything, but it's my intuition, that the trade-off doesn't seem to be 1:1 when you take on some friction to reduce the likelihood of some tail risk.

sanderjd 3y ago

Yep! I think, somewhat humorously for how this thread started - which was entirely mea culpa! - our perspectives on this are pretty closely aligned. One thing I think is that a lot (though not all!) of the requirements imposed in heavily-regulated industries are actively counter-productive, because they more effectively introduce friction on positive changes than risky ones. But it's basically impossible to strike the exact right balance between mitigating tail risks, which is critical, vs. introducing counter-productive friction. So I have sympathy, I just also find it very frustrating to work in such environments.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Yeah, we aren't too far apart! It's why I like HN, you can actually have a civilised conversation :) Friction certainly makes it harder to introduce positive change. I don't think it makes it easier to make riskier ones though, but you often can't do everything you'd like to get done.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Just to clarify, I didn't mean regulatory friction makes it easier to do things that are risky. I think regulation is pretty much entirely successful at making that harder. What I meant is that, in my view, regulations that reduce the chance of tail risks by let's say X% often seem to increase the friction on making improvements by more like say 2X%. Of course this isn't scientific or anything, but it's my intuition, that the trade-off doesn't seem to be 1:1 when you take on some friction to reduce the likelihood of some tail risk.