---
id: 2026-01-25T21:02:00-0500
title: 2026-01-25 21:02:??
tags:
daily: "[[2026-01-25]]"
---
# 2026-01-25 21:02:??

[[the-failure-of-risk-management]]

If I have a general complaint about [[hubbard_2020_failure]] it's this:
Hubbard fails to recognize logical parallels between his different arguments,
so to a critical reader they appear contradictory:

In [[hubbard_2020_failure#Break It Down, Then Do the Math]]
Hubbard introduces **decomposition** as a method for reducing error in estimates,
Providing Fermi's "piano tuners in Chicago" problem as an example,
without acknowledging that _Fermi_ supplied the decomposition.
Hubbard also references [[macgregor_1994_judgmental-decomposition]]
which is a similar case.
Neither of these examples suggest that decomposition is a magic bullet,
_or even that a layman's decomposition wouldn't be worse than nothing._
Despite this, Hubbard ends the section without qualifier:
"Clearly, decomposition helps estimates."

This section comes only pages after
[[hubbard_2020_failure#The Measurement Inversion]]
in which Hubbard warns against seeking detail for the sake of it.

See also [[the-failure-of-risk-management#_Exsupero Ursus_]].