11/ In general, if there is a need to cut costs by X, 10% will come from function degradation, 90% from increasing risk via "leaning"
-
-
Replying to @vgr
12/ Of that 90%, almost all will happen in parts of ops that will affect the vulnerable more. Not today, but at some unknown future date
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vgr
13/ Complex infrastructure inherently involves moral hazard because of this: experts manage risk distributions via cost cuts over time
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @vgr
14/ In this, impacted parties are not blameless. They usually knowingly overallocate resources to function X over insurance of function X
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
15/ How do you tell real efficiency increases from fragility-for-cost tradeoffs? Follow the information. Real thing embodies new knowledge
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @vgr
16/ When you can't find any new information embodied by an evolved system, but it's cheaper, then it is more fragile
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @vgr
17/ If you find a new information embodied locally, then there is some real efficiency increase and some risk moved elsewhere
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @vgr
18/ Local new information perturbs information balance of power and some moral hazard, leading to some *new* exploitation of info-neighbors
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
19/ Finally, true global information injected into a system (rare, == "disruption") can increase efficiency without fragility
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @vgr
20/ (of course I mean only limited global: where social costs beyond boundary become part of market dynamics beyond any top-down control)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
21/ Coda: am NOT saying there haven't been huge efficiency gains. They just can't be attributed to efficiency theaters that claim credit
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.