Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

That's one source of negative utility in this case. A general cost-benefit analysis of this policy decision would need to take into account quite a few more.

Anyway, I was referring to tptacek's apparent failure to consider that someone might think some finite number of deaths acceptable.

I have no problem with that. The only issue I have is when people cast a data-driven policy decision about a relatively dangerous novelty item as some kind of ignorant overreach.

'Ignorant overreach' is a value judgment, even if it doesn't sound quite like one. We can disagree about which data is relevant and how it should drive policy, and end up right back where we started.

The only ways out (that I can see) are to either talk about the disagreement itself or ignore each other and go back to lobbyist fights.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact