Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> A criminal can sell your Macbook if they like, but if they steal from Apple itself? Oh man there will be hell to pay.

Where do you get the idea that there will be "hell to pay" if you steal from Apple itself? People regularly run out of Apple stores with tens of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise and never get caught.




There is an amount of theft that apple is OK with because preventing it would hurt sales and occasional theift of product they can easily brick is certainly under that limit, plus there is likelyreporting biases, as it's likely you've seen videos of it happening but when there are arrests or recoverys you havn't seen those reports.


This is a regressive and defeatist attitude. We actually don't have to tolerate this in a society- those engaging in it should be punished and forcibly removed if they aren't able to change.


You misunderstand, the optimal amount of "loss" both internal and external, from Apple's perspective, is greater then zero. They know they could do straight forward things to reduce it, like put everything in the back room so you have to ask for it, or hire security guards to physically prevent theft.

But they decided that would be worse for business to prevent all theft then to simply have a few people steal stuff.

It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally.


That's the relative optimal loss given the alternatives presented.

The absolute optimum is zero.

>It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally.

Risking rape or death when I leave my house is a choice I make intentionally. That doesn't mean that murder is optimal or should be tolerated.

There are straight forward ways crime could be reduced if the public chooses.


The optimum is never zero. Not because we like murder and rape as a society, but because we don't know how to make it zero and broad attempts to bring it closer to zero significantly limit our freedoms and worsen our society. Of course it sounds horrible if you're the victim of a rape (and I guess it would be terrible as a murder victim if you weren't, well, dead) that we accept a baseline level of crime as optimal but the fact is that the best way to get rid of rape is to prevent people from having sex. This is an extremely unpopular proposition and it is actually unlikely to be effective anyways, because wanting to have sex is far more desirable than wanting to rape people, and making crimes illegal doesn't actually prevent them from happening.

There are a number of less extreme suggestions that you actually probably hold (more policing, stronger sentencing, etc.) that people actually do support and are not obviously dead in the water but they have the same tradeoffs on a smaller scale. Do we accept, as a society, less crime that also makes it more likely that you will be mistakenly identified as a criminal? Should we funnel more money towards crime prevention instead of, say, healthcare? Going "we cannot tolerate any crime" sounds great but the optimal amount of crime will always be nonzero.


You are torturing the word optimal so I think it is meaningless to discuss that feature.

I also reject your view that everything is social tradeoffs. I think it is a extremely narrow perspective that completely ignores culture, norms, and behavior.


That’s literally what it means in this context. Apple puts up with some amount of crime because doing so is optimal for them. Driving crime to zero would cost them more money than it would save.


It is the best option of those available to apple.

That doesnt mean it is the best solution theoretically possible.

If I threatened you with the choice between death and paying me money you would probably choose the money. However, surely you think it would be better not to be threatened at all.

I think it is extremely closeminded to think that there is nothing that nothing else could be changed outside of apples control.

It is absurd to think that this is the optimal configuration of society and culture.


What do you have in mind?


I think there are lots of preferable situations. The simplest and best is probably if theft was simply viewed as a personal moral failing and looked down on. This is reinforced by shaming and is how it works in high trust societies.

Other options include making sure people have enough success that they have something material to lose from getting caught stealing.


Despite agreeing with you in broad strokes I still don't see this being completely feasible. We should obviously strive for a society where people don't need to steal and don't feel compelled to steal either. That said, even in a much better situation there will still be someone who does it. At some point you really do have to go "investing more resources into this is not productive for society".


Like I said, it depends on the assumptions, but I agree that for most assumptions, there will be some tradeoff and non-zero level of theft occuring.

My main rejection is the idea that the current state is the best possible situation given all possible permutations.


> The absolute optimum is zero.

Define optimum. It would be trivially easy for Apple to make theft at their stores absolutely zero.

How is that optimum though? The same measures that make theft zero would also drive away pretty much all legitimate business. Is that optimum for you?


The optimum is the most desirable situation or outcome. It depends on the factors you can change, and those you assume are constant.

Surely you agree it would be best if Apple could have no theft, and no extra costs?

There are factors within apples control and factors outside apples control. Apple has limits to what it can do, but that doesnt mean that no better solutions exist outside the control of apple.

There is a best solution of those you can choose (relative), and also a best solution out of all those that are possible (absolute)


> Surely you agree it would be best if Apple could have no theft, and no extra costs?

I'd also like a unicorn and absolute eternal world peace, if we're wishing for unrealistic things.


It is hardly unrealistic. You see cities, states, and countries where this type of thing simply doesnt happen, and others where it is a repeat problem.

It isnt like blatant and normalized property theft is an unchangeable universal constant.

Even in my local area, I can huge differences between areas a dozen miles apart, and have seen huge changes over time.

This is why I think it is silly to think nothing could be done differently, and whatever is being done is the best possible solution in every way.

This is basically saying every choice is perfect, and there is no room for improvement. This is defeatist and frankly wrong.


The optimum risk level is never zero. There comes a point where the cost of averting the risk is greater than the cost of the risk.

Consider my standard example of this: electric power. We insist nuclear plants be insanely safe, making them uneconomic, making us use far more dangerous sources of power instead.


The word optimum only makes sense in context of limitations and assumptions, which are subject to change.

For the sake of argument, lets assume nuclear power is the safest option available given current technology.

That doesnt mean that no improvement is possible and we should reject alternative design that are even cheaper and safer poses no benefit.

Just because something is the best choice available to apple doesn't mean it is the best choice available to society.


I'm not saying the situation is inherently static. Rather, it's the most extreme case I'm aware of where the effort to reduce risk actually increases it.


Doesn't make it false. Reality doesn't change just because you are sad about it.


Evidence has shown that punitive penalties for crime do not affect crime rates.


"those engaging in it should be punished" isn't a call for harsher penalties, it's a call for consistent penalties, which is a good idea.


Recent events show that not prosecuting crimes leads to crime waves.


Studies have shown that reality conforms to my prejudices.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: