3 ms·
>smaller impact than expected Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless yo
by bumby 1y ago
>smaller impact than expected
Yes, it’s about both effect size and uncertainty. That’s science. But your original post also brought policy into play. Unless you actually know that uncertainty, effect size, and those costs (including opportunity costs), you’re just making stuff up because “it just makes sense so it must be true.” That’s neither good science, nor good policy.
Advocating for big policy changes (like changing building codes) without understanding those aspects is like jumping into a pool headfirst before knowing the depth.
- willsmith72 1y agoand this is how societal progress slowly crawls to a halt.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bumby 1y agoMoving fast and breaking things has a place. It’s just an error to think it applies to everything. There’s a reason why it’s usually relegated to relatively low-risk applications. I doubt you’d advocate an avionics engineer to take the same attitude.
- willsmith72 1y agoYou're the only one who said break things
- bumby 1y agoIt’s natural consequence of risk-blind policy making. The idea that we can move fast and not break things without understanding the systemic risk is naive. I’m fine with moving fast if we understand the risk and the risk is borne by the appropriate parties. Your previous comments are a little too hand-wavy to indicate a nuanced understanding of the risk.