The optimal amount is zero, but the realistic amount is non-zero.
I suppose I should have spelled it out, given that so many people didn't get it.
It would be like declaring that the optimal number of vehicle deaths is zero, but then not realizing that the only way to achieve that is to make sure nobody can drive. When faced with the realities, everyone backs off and acknowledges that some risk is necessary
You come across as one borrowing patio11’s coat. He's a great blogger. You aren't.
You got it backwards in your rush to squeeze your ad hominem attack in there.
The optimal target for fraud can be zero. It's okay to aim for zero.
The optimal amount of fraud cannot be zero, because the cost to get to zero goes asymptotic to infinity as it approaches zero. Therefore the optimal amount of fraud cannot be zero.
> You come across as one borrowing patio11’s coat. He's a great blogger. You aren't.
Please don't sling ad hominem attacks like this.
I don't know why you're trying to compare me to someone else. These concepts did not originate with patio11. Is your only exposure to these concepts through one HN user's blog posts?
You are so determined for me to be wrong that you've tied yourself in a knot.
This is not an ad hominem, it is a direct criticism of your attitude.
The optimal—defined by MW as “most desirable or satisfactory”—amount of fraud is zero. The optimal target—synonymous with amount in this context—of vehicle deaths is also zero. The realistic value for either statistic is non-zero. You even said “when faced with the realities”.
You’re the only one not getting what is basic logic and definitions. Or more accurately, you are getting it, but you’re refusing to accept that your imprecise language was incorrect. You misused optimal when you meant realistic.