5 ms·

The optimal amount of airline catastrophes is non-zero. The optimal amount of pollution is non-zero. The optimal amount of [insert almost anything bad] is non

by abtinf 3y ago

The optimal amount of airline catastrophes is non-zero. The optimal amount of pollution is non-zero. The optimal amount of [insert almost anything bad] is non-zero.

twiceaday 3y ago
The optimal amount of X under the assumption that it costs more and more resources to reduce X is non-zero. It's this middle part that you omitted that turns an unintuitive statement into an obvious one.
ta8645 3y ago
Those are all true statements, right? The ideal amount of anything bad, is zero. But the optimal amount is going to be higher than that, given we don't have unlimited resources to spend.
yreg 3y ago
Again this is totally misleading. The optimal amount of airline catastrophes is zero. It is also impossible. Should all humans spend all of their effort and all of their resources to lower the amount of airline catastrophes? I believe that pretty much everyone finds it reasonable to say no.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Why is that zero? I don't want to die in a plane any more than the next person, but is zero really optimal? It's least life losing, it's least catastrophic, but is it optimal? the question becomes, what are we optimizing for? If the optimization equation is for lives lost, I can make that zero real easily by just stopping air travel entirely. If no one travels by air, then no one can die by air. But of course that's not a useful solution at all. So we're not optimizing for lives not lost. We're optimizing for people being able to travel. Loss of life is tragic, but not the be all-end all. The gross reality that we don't want to face is that there's a price for a human life, the only question is how much? Would you take a $10 10,000 mile flight across the world with a 1% chance of dying? How about a $100 flight with a .1% chance of dying?
  - yreg 3y ago
    Optimum is zero, because if you could wave a magic wand to magically make the amount of accidents zero, it would be a good thing to wave the wand. The optimum is non-zero only if there are enough costs associated with making it zero. That's why asking for optimum amount of fraud is misleading. It omits the costs. Once the costs are taken into account (i.e. it is clarified what the question means) the answer is obviously above zero.
    - 0xBDB 3y ago
      "Optimum is zero, because if you could wave a magic wand to magically make the amount of accidents zero, it would be a good thing to wave the wand." You are conflating optimum (highest value outcome for all variables) and ideal (highest value outcome for one variable). The ideal number of any bad thing is zero. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any bad thing for which the optimum number is zero. Extinction level events, perhaps.

by abtinf 3y ago

The optimal amount of airline catastrophes is non-zero. The optimal amount of pollution is non-zero. The optimal amount of [insert almost anything bad] is non-zero.

twiceaday 3y ago

The optimal amount of X under the assumption that it costs more and more resources to reduce X is non-zero. It's this middle part that you omitted that turns an unintuitive statement into an obvious one.

ta8645 3y ago

Those are all true statements, right? The ideal amount of anything bad, is zero. But the optimal amount is going to be higher than that, given we don't have unlimited resources to spend.

yreg 3y ago

Again this is totally misleading. The optimal amount of airline catastrophes is zero. It is also impossible. Should all humans spend all of their effort and all of their resources to lower the amount of airline catastrophes? I believe that pretty much everyone finds it reasonable to say no.

fragmede 3y ago
Why is that zero? I don't want to die in a plane any more than the next person, but is zero really optimal? It's least life losing, it's least catastrophic, but is it optimal? the question becomes, what are we optimizing for? If the optimization equation is for lives lost, I can make that zero real easily by just stopping air travel entirely. If no one travels by air, then no one can die by air. But of course that's not a useful solution at all. So we're not optimizing for lives not lost. We're optimizing for people being able to travel. Loss of life is tragic, but not the be all-end all. The gross reality that we don't want to face is that there's a price for a human life, the only question is how much? Would you take a $10 10,000 mile flight across the world with a 1% chance of dying? How about a $100 flight with a .1% chance of dying?
- yreg 3y ago
  Optimum is zero, because if you could wave a magic wand to magically make the amount of accidents zero, it would be a good thing to wave the wand. The optimum is non-zero only if there are enough costs associated with making it zero. That's why asking for optimum amount of fraud is misleading. It omits the costs. Once the costs are taken into account (i.e. it is clarified what the question means) the answer is obviously above zero.
  - 0xBDB 3y ago
    "Optimum is zero, because if you could wave a magic wand to magically make the amount of accidents zero, it would be a good thing to wave the wand." You are conflating optimum (highest value outcome for all variables) and ideal (highest value outcome for one variable). The ideal number of any bad thing is zero. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any bad thing for which the optimum number is zero. Extinction level events, perhaps.