Inspired a tangential speculation about applying the Kelly criterion to non monetary risks, e.g. if Kelly moderates size of bets based on current holdings and potential payoffs to avoid an individual’s financial ruin, then where are our optimal risk-takings noting what is at stake in the hierarchy of risks triangle (from individual yup to ecosystem). In other words, is a risk of ruin that is limited to an extended tribe acceptable if it has potential for payoff at the societal scale? Perhaps this can be translated to a kind of heuristic as to when risking one layer of the triangle is acceptable -> does there have to be potential benefits two layers up for a risk to be considered noble or is just one enough?

Written by

Writing for fun and because it helps me organize my thoughts. I also write software to prepare data for machine learning at

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store