On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 15:43:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 15:40:54 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 12:50:55 UTC, John Colvin
wrote:
The complexity of the tradeoff is exactly why experienced
windows developers are necessary here. For example: any
tradeoffs I designed would likely be very far from
pareto-optimal on windows, let alone be a good solution
overall.
No, a tradeoff is a tradeoff, one tradeoff is not better than
another
That's what pareto-optimal means.
<Putting on my economist hat>
Pareto optimal means you can't make anybody better off without
making somebody worse off (you used it properly above...).
It's very easy to show that it's possible to have one trade-off
be better than another. For instance, suppose I am indifferent
between purchasing 1 TV or 1 computer. This is trade-off 1.
Alternately, I am also indifferent between buying 2 TVs or 2
computers or 1 TV and 1 computer. This is trade-off 2. However, I
prefer the second set of trade-offs to the first set of
trade-offs because I prefer more stuff. I'm probably
over-analyzing this...
An alternative to Pareto is Kalder-Hicks efficiency. A
Kalder-Hicks improvement means that the people who are better off
from some change are sufficiently better off from that change
that they could compensate the people who are worse off from the
change if they wanted to. Maybe that is a better framework for
thinking about things.
