3 ms·

My model is pretty simple, just like yours we cut up the borders into segments. Certain of these segments will have higher or lower probabilities of interceptio

My model is pretty simple, just like yours we cut up the borders into segments. Certain of these segments will have higher or lower probabilities of interception for various reasons, and drug traffickers are able to estimate this probability somehow. Only one of these segments needs to be vulnerable for the traffickers to succeed, and they will assess essentially the whole length of the border. It's then clearly exponentially more likely for the traffickers to succeed as the border is longer, as the likelihood for at least one segment with acceptable probability increases exponentially with the number of segments. If you assume that drug traffickers can't estimate the likelihood of success or that every part of the border is consistently just as secure at every point in time as any other then you'd be right, but those aren't reasonable assumptions in my opinion.

Retric 2y ago
You just commented a minor logically fallacy here. People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment. They might have better targets, but if a given segment isn’t secure that’s an inherent issue even if people happen to choose somewhere else. In the other direction, if some segment is effectively impossible to cross that’s irrelevant. You don’t need other segments to reach an arbitrarily high standard just high enough to either get people to give up on the idea or fail often enough you’re dealing with the issue. IE one guy with a backpack per decade isn’t failure.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  > People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment. People are, in practice, given a commensurate reward, willing to accept arbitrarily high risk, and market dynamics are willing to provide the rewards in this case.

Retric 2y ago

You just commented a minor logically fallacy here. People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment. They might have better targets, but if a given segment isn’t secure that’s an inherent issue even if people happen to choose somewhere else. In the other direction, if some segment is effectively impossible to cross that’s irrelevant. You don’t need other segments to reach an arbitrarily high standard just high enough to either get people to give up on the idea or fail often enough you’re dealing with the issue. IE one guy with a backpack per decade isn’t failure.

sudosysgen 2y ago
> People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment. People are, in practice, given a commensurate reward, willing to accept arbitrarily high risk, and market dynamics are willing to provide the rewards in this case.