Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preparedness Paradox

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 130 posts

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#11

Post by _ea1k »

aaron695 wrote: post #2

Incoherent. How can there be a levee paradox. You can see the water it holds back. More people build because there are less floods. No idea what they are talking about with Fukushima The Millennial Bug is a good prospect. But that's a debate in itself.

Good point about the levee issue. Apparently there's a little wikiwar going on with that one already.

I couldn't follow their logic with Fukushima either. The wording was a little strange.

The Year 2000 scenario and covid scenarios are great examples IMO. The problem is that any great example is intrinsically going to be controversial, and that seems to be the paradox itself.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#12

Post by perrygeo »

paulpauper wrote: post #4

A problem is the media hyping things too much. If not for media hype, maybe this paradox would not be such a problem or prevalent. People's expectations are in part formed formed by the media.

I see this all the time in software development. No media hype involved.

I worked with a senior engineer who had a brilliant knack for finding design flaws in review (usually security or performance issues) and would put in heroic efforts to fix them before they went to production. Someone privately called him out as an obstructionist - "He's constantly worried about BadThing happening, but it never does! He's just wasting time.". I politely corrected them - "Did you ever consider that BadThing never happens BECAUSE he's constantly worried about it?"

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#14

Post by Jtsummers »

perrygeo wrote: post #12
paulpauper wrote: post #4

A problem is the media hyping things too much. If not for media hype, maybe this paradox would not be such a problem or prevalent. People's expectations are in part formed formed by the media.

I see this all the time in software development. No media hype involved. I worked with a senior engineer who had a brilliant knack for finding design flaws in review (usually security or performance issues) and would put in heroic efforts to fix them before they went to production. Someone privately called him out as an obstructionist - "He's constantly worried about BadThing happening, but it never does! He's just w…

Related: https://web.mit.edu/nelsonr/www/Repenning=Sterman_CMR_su01_.... "Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened" by Repenning and Sterman.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#15

Post by arcticbull »

This also manifests in for instance how we treat testing in software engineering. Folks don't get as much credit for writing tests because it's impossible to count the set of SEVs that didn't happen. On the other hand, you get outsized credit for the heroics of fixing them.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#16

Post by motohagiography »

I generally don't prepare for anything because the opportunity cost of being prepared for something is almost necessarily against responding to the events I am not prepared for - and those are the ones you really have to worry about.

The secret I find is to always be ready for the things you aren't prepared for.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#18

Post by tunesmith »

I don't understand why it's called a paradox. It's just people having trouble understanding counterfactuals. Getting better at systems thinking is a great way to get better at avoiding this. At work I've learned to point out "we wouldn't need to spend time on this if we invested the time to implement X", so the product folks are more aware of the counterfactuals when it comes time to justify the investment.

Re: Preparedness Paradox

#19

Post by Jtsummers »

tunesmith wrote: post #18

I don't understand why it's called a paradox. It's just people having trouble understanding counterfactuals. Getting better at systems thinking is a great way to get better at avoiding this. At work I've learned to point out "we wouldn't need to spend time on this if we invested the time to implement X", so the product folks are more aware of the counterfactuals when it comes time to justify the investment.

> It's just people having trouble understanding counterfactuals.

You've just described most paradoxes. From the definition of "paradox":

> a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

Post reply on HN