I observe that less vetting means fewer decisions and less costs for the Hotel. Further, if demand for slots is low enough that no vetting is required, this effectively makes the project zero-risk to the Hotel.
This seems to assume the marginal cost to the hotel of taking on a guest is negligible. That does seem plausible to me, but it’s worth highlighting explicitly.
This is close to what I was assuming, but you are right I should have been explicit.
My actual assumption is that the marginal difference in cost between taking on one or another guest is negligible. Based on this I make the claim that projects which are not evaluated by the Hotel are zero risk (to the Hotel).
I expect we should always prefer the case where we did not evaluate the project at all to the case where we evaluated it and were wrong. I don’t see any reason to expect that the cost of evaluating experimental projects will have a high enough success rate to be a net benefit, even before we consider the impact of taking time and money away from the focus on supporting people.
This seems to assume the marginal cost to the hotel of taking on a guest is negligible. That does seem plausible to me, but it’s worth highlighting explicitly.
This is close to what I was assuming, but you are right I should have been explicit.
My actual assumption is that the marginal difference in cost between taking on one or another guest is negligible. Based on this I make the claim that projects which are not evaluated by the Hotel are zero risk (to the Hotel).
I expect we should always prefer the case where we did not evaluate the project at all to the case where we evaluated it and were wrong. I don’t see any reason to expect that the cost of evaluating experimental projects will have a high enough success rate to be a net benefit, even before we consider the impact of taking time and money away from the focus on supporting people.