Yeah, it’s easy to not be on the pareto frontier. Sometimes you can just make things better, and most people aren’t going to argue much against doing that. They might argue a little, because change is a cost. A few people will argue a lot, because they have some unusual benefit. If lots of people argue a lot, that suggests a tradeoff is happening.
My observation is that some people do not prioritize one of the three corners of this triangle, and are confused when others argue about tradeoffs they don’t see as important.
Well, or as is often the case, the people arguing against changes are intentionally exploiting loopholes and don’t want their valuable loopholes removed.
Yep, in what’s possibly an excess of charity/politeness I sure was glossing “exploiting loopholes and don’t want their valuable loopholes removed” as one example of where someone was having an unusual benefit.
Yeah, it’s easy to not be on the pareto frontier. Sometimes you can just make things better, and most people aren’t going to argue much against doing that. They might argue a little, because change is a cost. A few people will argue a lot, because they have some unusual benefit. If lots of people argue a lot, that suggests a tradeoff is happening.
My observation is that some people do not prioritize one of the three corners of this triangle, and are confused when others argue about tradeoffs they don’t see as important.
Well, or as is often the case, the people arguing against changes are intentionally exploiting loopholes and don’t want their valuable loopholes removed.
Yep, in what’s possibly an excess of charity/politeness I sure was glossing “exploiting loopholes and don’t want their valuable loopholes removed” as one example of where someone was having an unusual benefit.