The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

Re:The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) by barrkel on Monday October 26, 2015 @08:00AM (#10450784)

I would expect that probability has already been factored into the numbers at this level of decision.

If you're e.g. making a change to road signage, you wouldn't start out with the total number of KSIs, you'd be looking at the potential reduction in KSIs. Similarly, if you're looking at a medical intervention, you'd be measuring a probability-adjusted delta in QALYs (in the UK).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) by sokoloff on Monday October 26, 2015 @08:16AM (#10450846)

Yes, I agree that's how it should be done.

The question specifically used certain language for one branch and uncertain language for the other, so I replied to the question as asked rather than strawmanning an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) by chc on Monday October 26, 2015 @01:48PM (#10453001)

I think that's because one was a statement of present reality (the program is currently doing this), whereas the other was a hypothetical (if could do this if we funded it).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) by sokoloff on Monday October 26, 2015 @07:04PM (#10455122)

Thanks. I now see that as a possible reading. I read it only as a statement of uncertainty.

s/could/would/ would have eliminated the ambiguous reading.

[ Parent | on HN ]