> The comment directly above you on the page right now gives an example of people getting the trade-off wrong, so your dismissiveness is pointless. I was only

> The comment directly above you on the page right now gives an example of people getting the trade-off wrong, so your dismissiveness is pointless. I was only dismissing the way the article presented fraud tolerance as something deeper than a trade-off. I did acknowledge that the trade-off exists and in my other comment stated explicitly that I think discussion of how one finds the right trade-off is interesting. On your COVID example, I agree that in an emergency it's worth pulling the lever as you put it, i.e. grease the wheels and get the stuff we need. But I wouldn't expect the extra spending to be directed disproportionately at cronies of the government, fraudulent or not.