[HN Gopher] The Silence of Risk Management Victory ___________________________________________________________________ The Silence of Risk Management Victory Author : codexjourneys Score : 99 points Date : 2022-08-20 13:46 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (riskmusings.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (riskmusings.substack.com) | intrasight wrote: | Risk management really is the unsung hero of the modern world. A | good book on the topic is "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story | of Risk". | | The answer to the question "why did a thriving capitalist economy | emerge in Europe in the 17th century?" is simply "risk | management". It was the intellectual leap that made it all | possible. | [deleted] | chewz wrote: | > A good book on the topic is "Against the Gods: The Remarkable | Story of Risk". | | I wouldn't recommend that book. I would rather recommend | reading A Treatise on Probability by John Maynard Keynes... | which is insightful and genius like most of his work. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Probability | | Some parts of Fooled by Randomness are also insightful (before | Nassim Taleb became this weird, tin foil hat guy he is now)... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness | | As for capitalist economy - it is of course a matter of opinion | but I would rather say that capitalist economy is more about | rent seeking, externalising costs and taking crazy amounts of | risk with moral hazard rather then about risk management... | | But perhaps it is because I am risk manager by trade and had | seen too many insurance, banks and money managers from the | inside... | | EDIT: Both books - as I have just realized - are saying more or | less that probability and risks are real but rarely | quantifiable. I guess that makes me a pessimist. | wklm wrote: | I loved Fooled by randomness, could you recommend further | readings in a similar vein? | OrvalWintermute wrote: | >Yes, though as extreme climate events pile up, naysayers | dwindle. But their pushback against climate change efforts has | delayed mitigation by decades. We're now at a stage where we can | no longer prevent some terrible effects of climate change. It | would have been far better to risk naysayers' ridicule and dive | in earlier and stronger. | | Many people that talk about Climate Change, aka, Global Warming, | are so indoctrinated via ideological shades that they do not | recognize basic facts, and understanding where we are with our | own knowledge | | 1. Deglaciation, and Warming as climate trends preceded our oil- | based economy by thousands of years | | 2. Glacial Maximums are associated with low CO2 environments | | 3. "Our understanding of the Global Climate System is in its | infancy" | | 4. There are massive discrepancies between accurate space based | weather observations, and in-situ measurements. | | 5. Renewable Energy currently is insufficient to replace | petroleum sources, and will be for a long period of time. | everly wrote: | Sometimes when you do everything right no one knows you did | anything at all. | cardy31 wrote: | The point about society-level threats paying better than Silicon | Valley is a good one. I often look around in the tech industry as | a programmer and wish I could be paid well to do something that | actually matters, instead of just keeping kids addicted to social | media. | GrumpyNl wrote: | Why is it always about the payment, why not choose a job you | love doing? | GeneralMayhem wrote: | It's about both, but the magnitudes matter. Would you do a | job you love doing for free? Assuming the answer is no, then | to paraphrase Churchill, we've established what kind of | people we are; now we're just haggling over the price. | | Am I willing to take a 10% pay cut to work on things that are | good for society instead of selling ads? Sure. 25%? Probably. | But those aren't the magnitudes we're talking about. Total | comp for a senior-to-staff level engineer at FAANG (or anyone | competing with them) will be, let's say, 500k/year, plus | best-in-the-world benefits. Total comp for government or | charity work rarely cracks 100k, and even tech companies that | are focused on good rather than profit, maybe 200. | | And it's not like the FAANG jobs are _bad_ - day-to-day, they | 're incredibly interesting. There's lots of fun stuff to | build with smart people. The only problem is the background | existential dread. It's also hard to argue that they're | actively _harming_ humanity in a lot of cases - maybe this | line of reasoning works on potential Raytheon or Palantir | employees, where the delta in morality is much greater, but | convincing people to go from neutral-ish to good is harder | than convincing them to go from bad to good. | | So the question you're asking is, are you willing to take a | 60-80% pay cut to possibly do a less interesting job, in | exchange for moral fulfillment and knowing that you're | helping humanity? You might think the answer is yes, but I | think it's hard to fault people for whom it isn't. | kortilla wrote: | > maybe this line of reasoning works on potential Raytheon | or Palantir employees | | The people who work at Raytheon or Palantir think they are | less harmful than the people who work for Google/Facebook. | Nobody who has decided to work there thinks they are just | drone striking children. | twic wrote: | Some people who work at Lockheed Martin wrote the | software for the missiles being fired by Ukrainian | HIMARSs. They might even be quite proud of that. | DiggyJohnson wrote: | As the sibling comment also said, I don't think the the | difference in ethics of working for Facebook/Google vs | Palantir/Raytheon as obvious as you state. I would have to | think pretty hard about this, but my knee jerk moral | evaluation has them all about equal. | | Not to criticize you directly, but just sharing this | perspective. | Shugarl wrote: | >. Raytheon or Palantir employees, where the delta in | morality is much greater, but convincing people to go from | neutral-ish to good is harder than convincing them to go | from bad to good. | | Did palantir do shady things ? I now that the CEO got in | trouble for looking down on poor people ( or something | along those lines ?), but is there more ? | chowells wrote: | Now? The _name_ of the company is Palantir. That 's not | an accident. They're telling you exactly what they do, | what they always have done, and always will do. If you're | comfortable selling surveillance technology to abusive | governments, that's up to you. But this isn't some | surprise new thing. | vegetablepotpie wrote: | In my case I work for a defense contractor and make decent | money. I could work for another company doing more meaningful | work. But I almost certainly would make less money. This | would cause me to fall behind my peers pay scale wise. This | is not terrible, as I live well within my means, but this | impacts my future pay, and the money I can set aside for | investing. If I take that step now, I'd be leaving a lot of | personal wealth on the table. | | But if I build up enough investment wealth to pay for my life | in the future, I could take on more meaningful work in the | future. If I leave for meaningful work now, I may be making | money at that pay scale trajectory for the rest of my career, | similar to how people who graduated in 2008 have never caught | up to their peers wealth wise. | | I think it comes down to control about your financial | options. Relinquishing income puts you at a disadvantage. | nine_k wrote: | My honest and obvious answer: because my family (wife, kids) | need the money. | | It's always a balancing act though. I won't go to do a job I | loathe, because I won't stick there for long enough. I choose | jobs that I'm fine doing, and pass many jobs that I might | love doing but which won't pay the bills. | | I was fortunate enough to have a job I outright loved, and | which also paid well; it lasted 3.5 years. I'm immensely | happy to have had such luck. | rexpop wrote: | The Sheriff will evict me at gunpoint if I don't pay the | exorbitant rents in regions with an active job market. | Brian_K_White wrote: | Oh my such image so drama. | | The problem is merely rent, not that you are forced to work | a particular job at gunpoint. | | Did you think many people would not roll their eyes at this | attempted assosciation? | rexpop wrote: | > Did you think many people would not roll their eyes | | On the contrary, it's your cavalier viewpoint which is in | the global minority. | | I'll engage with your dismissive, bad faith argument for | the sake of earnestly inquisitive bystanders: no, we are | not "forced to work" but we are compelled to do so under | an economic systems which, at its leaf nodes, enforces | noncompliance with violence. Try thinking through a few | nth-order consequences of chronic unemployment. | | As for the "particular job" aspect, no it's not that one | (1) "particular job" is the requisite, but to attain | particular living standards, one can't realistically look | outside categories of jobs that share particular aspects. | So think of it not as "a particular job," but rather a | particular category of jobs which pay enough, in the | right regions, for the right qualifications. | | So, really, I am referring to a limited category and a | structural eventuality, while you are referring to "a | particular job at gunpoint." I think your extrapolations | have imported greater histrionics than my original post. | Brian_K_White wrote: | I don't see a single invalidation of my ridicule. | Sinidir wrote: | Then you're blind. | Brian_K_White wrote: | Perhaps you are hallucinagenic if you actually see a | gunpoint, rather than me being blind for not seeing it. | bagels wrote: | I want to retire comfortably. I'm probably going to be alive | for a long time after I'm no longer employable. Money can | make this possible. | throwawaysleep wrote: | The honest answer nobody will give. | | They like the idea of doing something good, but not enough to | sacrifice much for it. | | I am the same way. I work on boring as heck ad tech and | security stuff. | | I could do much more interesting work, but I would make less. | Interesting and beneficial to the world is even less. | | I won't even sacrifice pay for interesting. | | This is the same with climate change. Emergency? Many will | say so. Enough of an emergency not to fly to Thailand this | winter or not buy a monster house? Nope. | | I am the same way. I consider climate change a problem. But | I'm also likely going to eat beef every day for the rest of | my life in a meal or two. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | >This is the same with climate change. Emergency? Many will | say so. Enough of an emergency not to fly to Thailand this | winter or not buy a monster house? Nope. | | I think many of us common folks have fairly low energy | demands. | | But, the same set that goes to Davos, and is preaching to | us about cutting our consumption, is the same that has the | private jet, 3 mansions and a football field sized yacht. | | I'm so over the entitled elite telling us what to do. | Victerius wrote: | Why don't terrorist groups hire the best chemical engineers to | engineer chemical weapons? Or the best bioscientists to | engineer the deadliest plagues? Or the best hackers to engineer | the best computer viruses? | | Or not even the best, just average/competent enough scientists | and engineers? | | Phrased a little differently, would you accept being paid a | life-changing amount of money in exchange for anonymously | engineering a deadly threat to some people far from home and | knowing you could get away with it? Would you let your morals | stop you? | JackFr wrote: | Non-state actors typically don't have life changing amounts | of money. | markvdb wrote: | Some do, but even if they wouldn't, there's still state | terrorism. | marcinzm wrote: | Even if you were fine with it in theory there is a massive | risk to it in practice. | | In essence you're giving up most legal protections (since | you've got as much to lose as anyone else if the police catch | you) while working with people who likely have no moral | issues with killing you. Will they pay you or will they | kidnap your family and cut off someone's toe every time you | complain? | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | Given that there are many people who work for defense | contractors, and for middling pay, I think we can safely say | that plenty of people would not let their morals stop them. | [deleted] | filoleg wrote: | I don't think the comparison here is valid even in the | slightest, and I am not even talking about it from the | "terrorist groups and defense contractors are not morally | equal" angle at all. | | I simply think that the venn diagram of people willing to | do software dev work for a defense contractor like Boeing | or Raytheon and people willing to do software dev work for | the cartels/terrorist groups is not even close to | approaching a full circle. | | Sure, most people willing to do software dev work for the | cartels/terrorist groups are probably totally morally ok | with doing work for a defense contractor. But I am willing | to bet that most people willing to work for a defense | contractor will not feel morally alright working for the | cartels/terrorist groups even in the slightest. | lupire wrote: | The "terrorist" thinks they are defense contractor and | that Raytheon is the terrorist. It's fully symmetric. | | The difference is that many or most won't cross borders | to work for the opposing team. | | ISIS has many engineers. | kortilla wrote: | Maybe for some of the terrorist groups, but it's | certainly not the case for people working for the | cartels. | | There is no "both sides" argument to working for a group | that just wants to get filthy rich using brutal violence, | bribery, and disregard for the downsides of hard drug | addiction. The cartels don't have a recruiting story of | bringing justice to the oppressed, etc. It's just | opportunity for money and power for people with limited | opportunities otherwise. | | Totally orthogonal to recruiting for "mission focused" | orgs like terrorist groups. | JackFr wrote: | Can we somehow find a middle ground between saying "Thank | you for your service" every time we see a uniform and | writing off the entire military and defense industry as | immoral? | lupire wrote: | Spooky23 wrote: | It's a projection of guilt, immaturity or ignorance. | | Everything is awful, except for what pays _your_ | mortgage. The world is about shades of grey, not black | and white. | | That applies to all peddlers of moral indignation. The | most strident patriots are usually pasty old men who bear | no cost for their actions. | pessimizer wrote: | Maybe for a hypothetical military or defense industry, | but not for the ones that we have, who will tear through | five children to get to one "terrorist." | | edit: this is even a problem for people who write FOSS | (unfortunately leading to some of them putting moral | clauses in licenses), never mind those taking a check | from some of the worst people in the world. | sinenomine wrote: | Just an idea: you could always prep for an algo interview and | jump ship from developing infra for google.com to developing | infra for the next generations of cures in | https://www.isomorphiclabs.com/ | dinvlad wrote: | Out of curiosity, which TC ranges do you normally offer? | bagels wrote: | Spoiler, they aren't likely to offer 500k in liquid comp. | tene wrote: | I desperately wish there was a country I could move to where | civilization actually invested meaningfully in things that | actually matter. | 7thaccount wrote: | Nothing outside of like SV, finance, or being a doctor is | probably going to get you $300k and above. However, you can do | some important work and make above $100k in a fairly | inexpensive area if you want. | tene wrote: | Having worked in SV for so long, it's hard to really imagine | what this would actually look like. | | What are some examples of important work with decent pay in | an inexpensive area that a SV tech worker could be good at? | colechristensen wrote: | To be fair there are plenty of jobs in SV which aren't tied to | advertising or social media. | dinvlad wrote: | Highly-paid jobs? Would be good to hear some examples. | planarhobbit wrote: | PheonixPharts wrote: | Sure! You can build infrastructure for companies that sell | advertising or social media (which is... also advertising) | | Alternatively you can work for one of the companies burning | through VC money selling products/services at a loss who | need to advertise those services so they can sell more and | more quickly to create the illusion that one day they | _will_ be able to generate more than they spend! Don 't | worry too much about the loses the VCs will just make it up | in their investments in advertising companies and companies | selling infrastructure to advertising companies. | | Huh, something sounds weird about that setup, well good | thing money is cheap! | jacquesm wrote: | I think that's the opposite of what the GP was asking | for. | brazzy wrote: | Yes, it was pretty obvious sarcasm. | | Well, just goes to show that sarcasm is always bad for | factual debates. | buscoquadnary wrote: | I make around $120ish working for a non-profit. I mean it's | not SV money but no matter how much money I make I am | eventually be lying on my death bed and the only thing I | will have to comfort me will be the memories of good I left | in this world, so I do it and am grateful I make a very | comfortable living doing something positive. | | I'll also say that the idea of "Make lots of money now and | then I'll give back later and retire early and enjoy my | life" is a very risky proposition, you never know what | tomorrow might bring a car crash, cancer, who knows? | | > And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a | certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought | within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no | room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I | do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there | will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to | my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; | take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said | unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required | of thee - Luke 12:15-20 | motohagiography wrote: | On the cybersecurity side, risk management is pretty tangible. | It's technology governance, and security teams essentially act as | a licensing body for tech in an organization, and provide | intelligence about existential threats to the status quo of the | line of business. Success is anticipating attempts on the org, | and demonstrating how they were deflected or mitigated. There's | very little that is vague about it. Just this week I discovered a | new technique that some malware is using to bypass most sensors - | we manage risk very concretely. I know portfolio risk managers | who operate on instantaneous feedback about the P&L of their | models and opportunity costs. | | Where I disagree with the article is that I think the author is | seeing an opportunity to frame ideological concerns that exploit | uncertainty by calling it risk and equating it to disciplines | that he doesn't realize have very concrete competencies and | performance metrics. Also, we have technology and economic | solutions for our climate impact already. I'm still of the view | that if your plan doesn't work unless you take over the planet | and deprive entire nations of people of their freedoms, it's an | objectively evil plan, and somehow that makes me a counter- | revolutionary denialist. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Very well said with clear examples. This was a fantastic post, | thanks. | abbadadda wrote: | This is a good article. | | I think about this a lot working in SRE: Disaster avoidance is | invisible and often under-appreciated. | | I've also been reading Toby Ord's _The Precipice_ and avoiding | getting too depressed while in a bit of awe how close humanity | was/is to really destroying ourselves. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | > It would have been far better to risk naysayers' ridicule and | dive in earlier and stronger. | | It wasn't ridicule, it was propaganda intended to get people to | vote against their own best interests (and therefore stop | politicians from acting, by threatening them with consequences) | | And it worked, really well. Still does. | | If you're treating these issues as if it was a bunch of misled | but ultimately well meaning individuals then you are in trouble | before you start. | | For example, "we need new tech to solve this", which is both true | and dangerous. True in the sense that a million little fixes have | made things better, dangerous in that climate change deniers will | use it to divert time, energy and money from known fixes: | | > Green energy cannot meet Germany's need for reliable | electricity. That is why Germany still needs copious amounts of | fossil fuels; German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear | power phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for | renewables. | | > Germany is an example of how not to do green energy. Instead | the solution is to research and develop better green energy | technology. | | That was Bjorn Lomborg during the previous Ukraine gas crisis in | 2014. Better technology than Wind and Solar, which are the two | winners of a global, 4 decade race to produce cheap, clean | energy. That's what he thinks we need. While at that time Wind | energy was the cheapest source of energy available, and Solar was | rapidly catching it up. | | And here he is on twitter a few months ago doubling down on that: | | > The idea that the Ukraine war could be fixed by choosing | Western dependence on Chinese solar panels and batteries over | Western dependence on Russian oil and gas reveals just how | unserious the environmental movement really is | | So, it's a real problem, and we really need to do something about | it, but what the consensus solution is, isn't a solution after | all, we just need to invest in future tech that will solve the | problem. We can't rely on the the Chinese manufactured solar | panels that he himself claimed did not work. Now they work, | they're just too Chinese. | | That's the depressing lesson of Climate Change and COVID, if | right-wing politicians can buy a few votes and stall some | regulations via attacking science, reason, fact etc., then they | will. | codexjourneys wrote: | Yes, we need to take massive action now with what we have, | while also developing future tech like better transport for | solar energy. Pushing for further delays based on "future tech | will save us someday" isn't anything I support. It's | disheartening but unsurprising that some factions are framing | it as either/or instead of both/and. | | Interesting background about Lomborg, thank you! | scottLobster wrote: | To be fair, he's making two separate points. One technological | and one political. | | Germany is neither sunny nor windy nor has a long coastline. | It's a poor candidate for those forms of energy regardless of | who's making the panels and windmills. If they want zero | emissions from power production they'll have to go nuclear or | build out the infrastructure to import clean energy from | countries with better renewable options. | | Solar and Wind as we know them are part of the solution, but | aside from a few areas that are abnormally sunny or windy by | global standards there's no way they can even theoretically be | the entire solution, and that's not even touching on the | inadequacy of current battery technologies and mineral inputs | needed to manufacture all this stuff. | | From a political perspective, I'd say he's right that being | beholden to China is little better than being beholden to | Russia, only practical difference being China lacking options | for military invasion. | | Simple fact is there is no solution to climate change at the | moment. We're working on a number of things that might one day | become pieces of the solution, but I see too much "we just have | to do X, Y and Z and climate change will be solved!" rhetoric | that is wishful thinking at best, and ivory tower edicts | ignoring all externalities of said decisions at worst. The | world isn't a computer model. | marcosdumay wrote: | Buying photovoltaic panels does not make one beholden to | anybody. | | What is completely different from buying fuel. | ISL wrote: | In the short term, yes, but in the long term, panel- | production capacity will be a key pillar of a country's | independence. | | Buying panels from another country helps that other country | realize both enduring expertise and aides their economy of | scale. | | Also, should solar-powered countries ever go to war, I | suspect single airbursts of comparatively small | conventional munitions will be sufficient to shatter large | swaths of panels, making production capacity important. | marcosdumay wrote: | The long term contains plenty of time to grow internal | industry or find another seller. | | And yes, productive capacity of everything is important | when you consider a war. Still, fuel supplies are much | more fragile than solar generation. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Lomborg is Danish, a country famous for it's success with | wind power. | | He's not making a specific point about Germany, he's | attacking anything that might lead to government action on | climate change: | | Seven years ago: > When considering climate change, most | people think wind turbines and solar panels are a big part of | the solution. But, over the next 25 years, the contribution | of solar and wind power to resolving the problem will be | trivial - and the cost will be enormous. | | Thirteen years ago: > A good illustration is Denmark, which | early on provided huge subsidies for wind power, building | thousands of inefficient turbines around the country from the | 1980s onwards. Today, it is often remarked that Denmark is | providing every third terrestrial wind turbine in the world, | creating billions in income and jobs. | | > A few years ago, however, the Danish Economic Council | conducted a full evaluation of the wind turbine industry, | taking into account not only its beneficial effects on jobs | and production, but also the subsidies that it receives. The | net effect for Denmark was found to be a small cost, not | benefit. | | > Not surprisingly, the leading Danish wind producer is today | urging strong action on climate change that would imply even | more sales of wind turbines. | | Turning round after 20 years of saying solar is bullshit and | attacking the wind industry in his home nation as if they're | part of a climate hoax and then complaining that they're all | made in China is shockingly brazen. | legulere wrote: | > they'll have to go nuclear | | Germany built up more renewables in 20 years than there ever | was nuclear and the speed is still accelerating: https://de.w | ikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.s... | | Nuclear currently is too slow to be built and too expensive | for fighting climate change in time. France is partially to | blame for the current energy crisis in Europe, because they | put pride in their nuclear power plants before realistic | replacements for their old reactors that are way over their | initial designed runtimes. | rpdillon wrote: | My prediction: we'll need nuclear in the end. Time to get | serious and invest in new tech. Light water reactors were | invented roughly 70 years ago, and it shows. There are much | more modern designs we can employ. I wish we didn't discuss | 'nuclear' as though it's one technology. | | Have no problem with renewables in the meantime. | UIUC_06 wrote: | I don't see any realistic, actionable analysis or solutions in | here. | | > People need to get paid (very!) well for their work on the | endeavor | | Good luck with that one. Who, exactly, is going to pay? And if | you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how would | the flood of applicants be managed? | | > Similarly, with climate change, programs to develop ways to | transport solar energy could help, if implemented at scale and | with vigorous commitment and funding. (It would be fairly easy to | produce the solar energy; the challenges are reducing toxicity of | manufacturing solar panels and batteries, increasing storage | capacity, and figuring out transmission or transportation over | long distances) | | I had the impression that many people already _were_ working on | all those. Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem | would solve it faster? | | Finally, Y2K and Ebola are only two examples. How about "nuclear | war over Taiwan"? That seems like the ultimate risk, and it's not | by any means improbable. | HWR_14 wrote: | > Who, exactly, is going to pay? | | Well, he clearly said the government. Who else would pay? Or | could pay? | | > if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how | would the flood of applicants be managed? | | We manage people going to work at FAANG and people becoming | CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and people becoming actors and | sports stars. "More people want this job than are applying" is | something that most places that pay above minimum wage deal | with. | | > Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem would | solve it faster? | | Probably. With a lot of these problems more funding leads to | faster solutions. Moreover, if you knew that solving those | problems was a valid career move, the smartest people would | stop aiming towards software and wall street. | | > How about "nuclear war over Taiwan"? | | This seems unlikely. Putin using nukes over losing in Ukraine | seems far more possible, although if other countries retaliated | is an open question. China seems really patient about Taiwan. | nradov wrote: | Where would Putin even use nukes in Ukraine? Tactical nuclear | weapons are only really useful against troop concentrations. | At this stage of the war, Ukrainian forces are already | dispersed and dug in. Many of them are engaged in close | combat with Russian forces, so a Russian nuclear strike would | end up being an "own goal" to some extent. | | Putin could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy Kyiv, or | other civilian population centers or infrastructure. But to | what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. | HWR_14 wrote: | > But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war | goals. | | "If I can't have it, no one can". | | Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land | Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with | nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" | is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing | Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him | taking such a step. | | Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without | constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger | level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and | intelligence. | UIUC_06 wrote: | People in history have quite often done dangerous things | that were against their interests, even as understood at | the time. | | Czar Nicholas mobilized his troops in the run-up to WW I, | which ultimately led to his and his family's executions, | as well as the deaths of millions of people. | | Napoleon III declared war on Prussia, which led to | France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine and his own capture by | the enemy. | | So saying "he would never do it" is pretty irresponsible. | UIUC_06 wrote: | > With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster | solutions | | Evidence, please. Would more funding for nuclear fusion lead | to faster commercial-scale electric plants? Explain how the | fundamental physics problems can get solved faster. | | > China seems really patient about Taiwan. | | I'd call that "wishful thinking." Given that they just | demonstrated how they can effectively blockade the island | without an invasion. | HWR_14 wrote: | > explain how the fundamental physics problems can get | solved faster. | | That's not what I said. For _engineering_ projects, even | novel ones, funding leads to faster results. I mean, look | at what you can do in WWII when you literally decided that | physicists should get so many resources because the A-Bomb | was that important. | | And if your concern is storing and transmitting energy, | there are engineering ways to do that at scale. It's | expensive, but doable. | | > Given that they just demonstrated how they can | effectively blockade the island without an invasion. | | A multi-year blockade is pretty patient. I'm not saying | China will never act. Clearly, they are slowly moving. I'm | saying they'll go slow enough that it will never come to | nukes. | UIUC_06 wrote: | You said "With a lot of these problems." Maybe you should | clarify which problems you mean. And which ones (e.g. | toxic chemicals in solar array manufacturing) really are | fundamental physics and not engineering. | HWR_14 wrote: | Toxic chemicals are only required for photovoltaic solar | generation. Focused heat solar generation (which is only | possible at a large scale) both produces no toxic | chemicals and is more efficient. | | But the answer to "which problems" is "the ones keeping | us from green energy". I though that was pretty obvious. | UIUC_06 wrote: | OK. Then the question is "would adding more money speed | it up, or are all available resources already being used | as effectively as they can be?" | | I don't know the answer to that, but I'm always | suspicious when the answer is always "more!" no matter | how much is already being spent. It suggests that simply | saying "more" is a substitute for any detailed analysis. | ElevenLathe wrote: | I understand this position normally, but we | unquestionably need many orders of magnitude more | investment in non-carbon-producing forms of energy and | energy storage if we have any hope at all of | decarbonizing at some large fraction of current living | standards. The situation right now is really dire and | almost any cost is worth paying. | | IMO we definitely will not do this investment, so the | remaining likely scenarios are grim. Either we | successfully decarbonize but at much lower standards of | living OR we just keep burning stuff we found in the | ground and the biosphere collapses. | mattzito wrote: | I agree somewhat that the article seems more structured around | "managing risk is important", rather than talking about | concrete actions. | | But the idea of paying people more to work on issues to | mitigate risk is very valid. Lots of people are working on | climate change, it's true, but it's not hard to imagine a world | where we subsidize that sort of work (assuming a reasonable | qualification process), and the result is more people working | on the solution. | | To put another way - if fewer people were working on it, would | it take less, more, or the same amount of time? Presumably | there is some optimal range where enough smart people are | working on a problem to speed things up, but not enough to | where there's a lot of wasted make-work. | | To the last point, there are always going to be risks that we, | individually or collectively, can't do anything about- nuclear | war over Taiwan being one of those. Our inability to influence | those risks does not obviate the opportunity to mitigate | others. | UIUC_06 wrote: | We can't do anything about the Taiwan risk? I beg to differ. | Are our political leaders, who are elected, ignoring it in | hopes it'll go away, actively making it worse, or mitigating | it? | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | This is so true. I especially agree about the "self-interest" | thing. | | Many good manipulators (politicians, managers, influencers, | etc.), take it a step further, and convince others to work | against their own self-interests, in order to serve the interests | of the manipulators. We've seen plenty of this, lately (I won't | go into specifics). | | Here's a rather pithy approach to risk management that I've used: | https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/risky-business/ | civilized wrote: | This is a perennial problem in the insurance industry, but in | kind of the opposite way. In insurance, your job is to take on | financially predictable risk at a premium that matches the | predicted risk. You exclude risks that you're not comfortable | predicting. But excluding risks usually also means you don't get | detailed data about them, making it difficult to justify | continuing _or_ discontinuing the exclusion. | dllthomas wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-20 23:00 UTC)