Consider a caricature: 2 bad-faith researchers researching “racial bias in police shootings” with intent to find yes and no answers respectively by any means necessary. Are they really equally risky? When should we demand deeper rigor?
Soft X-risks are actually the more interesting case, where those with more resources are more likely to be among minority of survivors, but also have more ability to study/predict/act in advance. They're under moral hazard of putting action burden on the less-resourced.
-
-
This is arguably what happened with the France yellow vests riots. Wonks in Paris decided climate action was a priority and imposed a tax that hit all equally but was a greater burden on the poorest who'd be most exposed to the risks but weren't involved in the action decisions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.