So in order for it to make sense to spend that money, you want some evidence there will be a positive return. Far from contradicting my position, what limited data I have seen does not support that effort, at least in the general case. Certainly whatsapp and the like don’t speak to it - they are very much outliers.

By all means try it. If your false positive rate explodes it will be an expensive lesson, but that’s always a risk.

One last point, the idea that nobody thinks about this and try’s thinks is laughable , which is worth noting because some comments in this thread almost suggest that it’s true,.

With my example of sacrificing a 10K cruise for a chance to not lose a 1M home, I figure?

> Far from contradicting my position, what limited data I have seen does not support that effort, at least in the general case.

Indeed, the data does not contradict a statement "on average, false positives are 4.5B each", which nobody has argued. However, it does contradict the statement "false negatives have any cost only when you are unable to fill the position as the result", which you have made in this thread.

>One last point, the idea that nobody thinks about this and try’s thinks is laughable , which is worth noting because some comments in this thread almost suggest that it’s true,.

Again, it would be silly to say that nobody thinks about it. Evidently, a number of people think the same way you do.