3 ms·

I think immediacy is key here. A bad sofa that falls apart after five years of use is a delayed loss (that fallacy has to have be discovered already). A small i

I think immediacy is key here. A bad sofa that falls apart after five years of use is a delayed loss (that fallacy has to have be discovered already). A small investment, prospects of gambling it and the inability to see through seem to play a role so lottery (poor people's tax) comes to mind. > pace of fraud Isn't it if the stakes are high more eyes are watching and thus quality control works (better)? I'm at a loss for scenarios that would raise the bar for the sofa game. A shabby sofa could signal something about the owner that might be indirectly relevant to the mating success. But on the other hand there seems to be a niche for that market where low quality fits quite well.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
What I meant by pace of fraud: think of US military R&D around World War II and the Cold War, vs. now., and whether they translate into anything actually useful for the soldiers in the field. What I think is a big part of the difference is that back then, US was fighting with peer powers and it was possible for it to lose. Over time, it transitioned to only fighting wars with much weaker opponents - wars with no "lose" condition, where the only variable is how much money the US is going to spend on any particular conflict before getting bored and recalling soldiers home. The latter kind of conflict doesn't create much of pressure to deliver working solutions, or even test bed to verify them.
- nakedneuron 2y ago
  I know little of U.S. foreign policy, but here's my unoriginal take. Those conflicts the U.S. engage in are the test beds for its military industry. Wheels need to spin and shrinking the industry is not an option. What's at stake is deterrence, thus yes survival, and I think it works quite well for them. In regards to "fraud".. you mean corruption.. or defunct machinery?.. in the former case I'd say it's a bonus for standing by. Thanks for standing by.. :)

TeMPOraL 2y ago

What I meant by pace of fraud: think of US military R&D around World War II and the Cold War, vs. now., and whether they translate into anything actually useful for the soldiers in the field. What I think is a big part of the difference is that back then, US was fighting with peer powers and it was possible for it to lose. Over time, it transitioned to only fighting wars with much weaker opponents - wars with no "lose" condition, where the only variable is how much money the US is going to spend on any particular conflict before getting bored and recalling soldiers home. The latter kind of conflict doesn't create much of pressure to deliver working solutions, or even test bed to verify them.

nakedneuron 2y ago
I know little of U.S. foreign policy, but here's my unoriginal take. Those conflicts the U.S. engage in are the test beds for its military industry. Wheels need to spin and shrinking the industry is not an option. What's at stake is deterrence, thus yes survival, and I think it works quite well for them. In regards to "fraud".. you mean corruption.. or defunct machinery?.. in the former case I'd say it's a bonus for standing by. Thanks for standing by.. :)