4death4

It’s not self centered at all. People act because there is some benefit to them in their action. You suggested I take an action without providing a convincing benefit. I was actually hoping to help you, by explaining why the types of suggestions you’re providing to people are likely to fall upon deaf ears.

And yet, there are upvotes and they’re displayed to the poster. Also, I used the word ostensibly to imply I may personally have some other motivation. But in either cases, the broader point still stands: there are diminishing marginal returns to being more correct.

I wasn't aware one died of a staph infection. The other officially died from suicide.

Two Boeing whistleblowers "committed suicide" within a few weeks of each other.

Definitely the people working on the model. It ultimately doesn’t matter what the users want because you can’t arbitrarily deliver an experience. You can only deliver what it’s possible to extract from the model, so growing the possible things the model can do well is most important.

Being the one best suited to meet your customers needs is a sales strategy. That might include staying open late if you can convince people they’re going to regret not tasting your food after a night out of drinking.

It’s not a captive market. It’s a market where the buyer has a need and if they don’t have that need met, then the buyer will suffer. That’s FOMO, and that’s when sales happen. If the buyer can sit on their laurels without any negative repercussions, then they’re not going to pull the trigger until their situation changes.

I disagree. For instance, let’s say I’m an auto manufacturer and I need some parts made. If I don’t get those parts, I have to stall my assembly line and lose a lot of money. If I find someone who can supply the parts in a short time frame, then I will definitely fear missing out by declining the sellers offer. If I capitulate and the seller delivers reliably, then I am going to gladly return for their services because they can ensure my business stays running.

The flaw in your logic is that you’re taking too myopic a view. In your world “making something worse” is somehow divorced from the tyranny of convenience, but in reality it’s not. Changing society is itself inconvenient, and therefore unlikely to happen unless leaving society as-is is less convenient.

Reducing variance in a random outcome still has value. For instance, you might have the money to cover an adverse outcome, but if you could guarantee you wouldn't need the money, then you could park it in an illiquid asset (e.g. some type of investment).

How does it not work that way? Password cracking is infinitely parallelizable.

So 99 of them could crack a password in 1 year? That is easily obtainable and not secure at all.