1.2 KiB
id, aliases, title, tags, dg-publish, daily, yearly
| id | aliases | title | tags | dg-publish | daily | yearly | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-25T21:02:00-05:00 | 2026-01-25 21:02:?? |
|
true | 2026-01-25 | 2026 |
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]].