This article seems to argue that sunk costs are not so much a fallacy beccause they often come with real ongoing costs that make them hard to ignore. This jus

This article seems to argue that sunk costs are not so much a fallacy beccause they often come with real ongoing costs that make them hard to ignore. This just begs the question. The reason we harp on sunk costs is for exactly this fact. If they were easy to ignore, no one would harp on them. You never hear about the "don't play dice with strangers in an alley" fallacy because that is a fairly easy trap to avoid.