Hacker News Reader

Comment by empath75 | Hacker News Reader

“Never threaten to cost someone more than it would cost to have you killed.” is a reasonable rule to live by.

With the important caveats of 1) the implicit costs of murder-for-hire are probably pretty high (risk of going to jail, e.g.) and 2) killing someone doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit go away—though that doesn't help the person being killed.

So the utility formula is something like:

  (p[c] * c[f] + c[a]) ÷ p[l] > c[l]

  where:
  p[c] = probability of getting caught
  p[l] = probability of the lawsuit being dropped
  c[f] = value of your freedom
  c[a] = cost of an assassin
  c[l] = cost of losing the lawsuit

You can layer in additional probabilities—like the probability of the assassination being successful, or the probability of winning the case. This is just fun to talk about the utility formula of assassinations on HN.

But it's probably true that as c[l] increases, c[f] increases as well, and p[l] drops. So it's rarely (never?) worth this trade-off.

You forgot 'probability that your opponent reasons matters like this out rationally', which is a big one I think.

Which, if you want to get pedantic—and yes! let's get pedantic!—probably correlates with a lower probability that the assassination isn't successful. Because if they're irrational, they're going to end up meeting an undercover cop in the parking lot of the local K-Mart or something.

See also: Tiger King. Which is probably the best citation and the best thing I'll type all day.

Ah yes, Tiger King, a well balanced documentary that presents an in-depth look at the practices of murder for hire, and not a lurid tale of entertainment so Netflix can make more money. Popular media, especially shows like CSI and Law and Order, have an incentive to show the rich white folk how resolute the government is, and just how much no one could ever get away with murder. The reality's a bit different, and as recent events have shown, the police aren't above murder anyway. They protect their own and accept murderers in their ranks. So, an ex-cop or current cop is probably the best person to properly incentivize to commit murder.

For them, `p[c] = probability of getting caught` expands to a[c] = probability of getting caught a[b] = probability of there being no repercussions despite getting caught.

But if we're gonna base today's lesson on how to get away with murder on the show Tiger King, the two step lesson it teaches is: 1. own a tiger sanctuary. 2. feed your husband to the tigers for lunch.

One of them was convicted, and the other wasn't. Sure that's not proof of anything, but it's more than just the netflix documentary that says he did it.

They might also try to kill you themselves. Honestly I think most murderers (or would-be-murderers, or people who [try to] hire murders) are probably not thinking about their situation rationally. Phrased another way: most murders are not rationally motivated. Therefore I don't think the 'rational analysis' approach to predicting who might try to have you dead is likely to work well.

There are exceptions to everything but I think in general the more erratically somebody behaves, the more you should be concerned.

Your daily lesson in economics and its utter lack of morality!

But wait! It's not just the basic lesson of despair, here we have a bonus lesson: it's an equation where the actual values are impossible to determine, just like virtually every economic equation.

That seems like a rule that would have a terrifying chilling effect on a lot of legitimate lawsuits.

Logical, and I host most of us are able to live a life of such privilege. In desperate times, however, there are those who are forced to stand up for what they believe is right, and not to simply roll over. The fight with my HOA on my right to put in a trampoline is not worth killing over, but people like President Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Alexander Litvinenko have faced problems that were.

You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder, then you must factor in how valuable a couple decades in prison is worth to them, and how prone they are to taking such risks.

> You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder

How would it matter to the person in this example? They're already dead...

I was just pointing out it is not just a monetary issue and most of the successful criminals are intelligent actors.

I disagree, this discounts the martyr

Reply on news.ycombinator.com