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

> Regardless of the damage, I'd just take the bullet, fix my security, and not pay.

It's irrational to "bite the bullet" if the damage is significantly greater than the ransom.

Sure, it's better in the long term, but not for the person/organization being ransomed.




It's irrational to "bite the bullet" if the damage is significantly greater than the ransom.

It's not irrational. It's called doing the right thing.

Sure, it's better in the long term, but not for the person/organization being ransomed.

That's called being selfish. One would expect an institution like UCSF to act for the benefit of all of society and not like a six-year-old grabbing all the Easter eggs at the hunt and saying, "I got mine!"


What you call "selfish" is also known by some as "rational". Maybe that will help.


We can't survive in a society where min/maxing benefit is the sole form by which we determine whether something is the correct action or not.

I am sure you would agree that gender-based abortion, deforestation, and infinite copyright periods could be seen as "rational" to people in certain societies and certain economic situations. It doesn't mean that we should let such actions go without comment.


I totally agree with you. I was responding to "It's not irrational".

Doing the right thing isn't always rational from a direct comparison of objective metrics.


The two things are not mutually exclusive.




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

Search: