[FRIAM] are we how we behave?

[Marcus Daniels]

Obviously there would still be public pools of information.   "Lyft rider suffering with hypothermia stumbles out into traffic and is smashed by semi-truck on the 84.  News at 10."  Some might ignore the those public pools and some might get smashed on the 84.  Life goes on.  

On 3/7/19, 2:56 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen ∅" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

    But, again, you're adding judgment and evaluative capabilities that seem to require some kind of understanding of the components involved.  How would a car-ignorant person know that a Lyft ride from Santa Fe to Tesuque might involve some risk of, say, dying of exposure?  We can assume they'd have some cultural/traditional experience that most Lyft cars are relatively new and clean. (Or that ballerinas don't typically hang out where guns are needed.)  And that might bridge the boundary between a [non]security issue.  But, again, this is not "to relate".  It's to solve a particular problem, whether or not that problem was implicitly solved by infrastructure (aka cultural tendencies).
    
    On 3/7/19 1:46 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > There are security issues and there are non-security issues.   When it comes to plausible risk scenarios, one can invest in a common pool and as opposed to another specialized pool.   A ballerina that knows how to handle a gun, say.