> avoiding imprecise or dual use terms like "waste."
Reminds me of the Texas power grid failure due to being an energy market designed by ENRON (still is too!). Turns out the opposite of “efficiency” isn’t “waste” it’s “redundancy” which their design is very efficient at getting rid of.
Well, moving away from "efficiency" can take you toward redundancy, but it doesn't have to. Some waste is just wasteful. It's important not to oversimplify, otherwise you wind up with counterproductive memes like "that project is justified because it will create jobs" or "the free market is the best solution for every problem" (it's a great solution for some problems, but ignores externalities).
Unfortunately the English language makes me choose between completely conveying nuance at all times and being understood and upvoted (people prefer short and pithy over long and subtly more correct).
I agree with your followup 100%. I didn’t write it in my original as it would have watered down my main communication goal.
Whenever says something is being made more “efficient” I ask them what they are trading for what.
Reminds me of the Texas power grid failure due to being an energy market designed by ENRON (still is too!). Turns out the opposite of “efficiency” isn’t “waste” it’s “redundancy” which their design is very efficient at getting rid of.