The point is to remove the most egregious of failures, and let literally anything else take their place.

Sometimes things fail so badly that a randomly initialized system outperforms them. Sometimes things fail so badly that no system at all outperforms them. The point is: recognize that and apply destruction.

▲

mulmen 2 days ago | parent [-]

> The point is to remove the most egregious of failures, and let literally anything else take their place.

Define egregious. Why would the next thing be any different than what it replaced?

> Sometimes things fail so badly that a randomly initialized system outperforms them.

Sometimes? When?

> The point is: recognize that and apply destruction.

How do we recognize what needs to be destroyed? What are the criteria?

What you’re describing here seems incredibly careless.

▲

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent [-]

"Incredibly careless" is maintaining the status quo where things like TSA exist.

If you don't find yourself saying "destroying this was a mistake" every once in a while, you aren't destroying nearly enough.

	▲	mulmen 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Destroying the TSA is a specific goal. It’s not random destruction. It’s a specific redundant organization. I still don’t see why we should try to cut into the bone of our society. I see no benefit to careless destruction.
	▲	LtWorf 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is TSA facing cuts?