Talk:Risk

Actually a discussion on the usual concept of risk would not be bad. The Saint Petersburg paradox and all that stuff. - π 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be somewhat off-mission, though. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about if I tie it in with risk manipulation by banks, the sort of thing that contributed to the financial collapse? - π 04:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is acceptable. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also a decent number of fallacies involving risk, I believe. It helps to influence bad behavior by groups. Researcher 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

'Twas a red link, I Ed Poured on it. No need to delete, I think we might be able to say some smart things. Meantime, it is indeed a world domination board game. Surely that is on-mission? ħuman 05:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You could add something about game theory maybe. Real first name and last initial 09:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Risk is very much on mission. People don't understand risk and this is at the heart of a lot of stuff we do cover. A proper coverage and treatment of what risk is, how it's calculated and how people abuse it is certainly needed. ^{d hominem} 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, being theoretically on-mission hasn't made for much of an article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Funspace counterpart

I feel like this article could use a funspace counterpart — something along the lines of horrifying and gruesome (yet spectacularly unlikely) scenarios that extremely risk-averse people are probably imagining when they do stuff like refuse to ride on airplanes or vehemently oppose the construction of nuclear power plants within their towns. So far, I have three examples: "Airplane experiences spontaneous engine failure and/or wing loss, plummets out of the sky, and slams into the ground nose-first at high speed, killing everyone onboard in a maelstrom of igniting fuel and crumbling metal"; "Airplane is hijacked by terrorists and rammed directly into heavily occupied skyscraper, killing everyone on the plane and most of the people in the skyscraper"; and "nuclear power plant goes critical and explodes like the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, instantly vaporizing everything within several dozen kilometers and rendering a several-hundred-kilometer area uninhabitable for the next several centuries due to radioactive fallout".

The funspace article would conclude by stating that while the scenarios described are certainly terrifying to think about, they are very unlikely to happen (though they do tend to get all over the news when they do), in part because (unlike many automobile drivers) the people who build airplanes and nuclear power plants are not blithering morons. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)