--- title: "Prove Cost over Nonzero Added Value: 1 + E - C > 1" description: "A request to make the cost of rejecting extra value explicit: explain why C exceeds E." date: 2026-07-13 author: Bas Baudoin tags: [Philosophy] url: https://bb-projects.com/blog/prove-cost-over-nonzero-added-value/ --- # Prove Cost over Nonzero Added Value: 1 + E - C > 1 > Disclaimer: the goal is never to win, the goal is always to learn, surface the truth. > > Disclaimer: I state "my request", I never demand. People often reject something with 'useless' or 'not for me' without ever stating what it costs them. This is my request when that happens. -

E

= extra value -

C

= cost and disadvantages -

1

= the current value - My claim:

1

E

−

C

1

- (Reduced claim:

E

C

) - My ask: explain why you infer

C

E

So: the extra value I advise weighs more than your perceived cost, so concretely explain why cost > added value When a

C

surfaces, I accept our differences or I update my take. ## Examples ### Research -

1

= what we already know, stays regardless of what we ask next -

E

= new research and new data of varying quality, psychedelics for depression, geoengineering, aging - Common argument: "this isn't really scientific" / "this type of research has limitations" -> shrinks

E

, never names a

C

- Known biases discount

E

, they don't zero it: a study with a known lean still beats guessing, you just calibrate for the lean - **My request:** "Prove cost over nonzero added value" - "this budget buys more knowledge elsewhere" -> real

C

, same currency as

E

, fair fight - "I'm afraid researchers will misinterpret this" -> valid

C

, explicitly made, now arguable - "I'm afraid people will see this as a full solution rather than a small building block" -> valid

C

, explicitly made, now arguable ### Password manager -

1

= your current password routine, which keeps working -

E

= autofill and generated passwords, clearly more than zero - Common argument: "Nah, I know my passwords" -> provides no

C

- **My request:** "Prove cost over nonzero added value" - "one app holding everything feels risky." or "effort" or "currently other priorities, not enough space in mind for such things" or "it is something unknown to me, and unknowns like this cause me friction" -> all valid

C

### Ebike -

1

= your normal bike, pedaling stays fully available -

E

= hills flattened, headwind gone, arriving fresh - Common argument: "that's cheating, useless" -> provides no

C

- **My request:** "Prove cost over nonzero added value" - "I ride for the exercise" -> legitimate

C

E

was aimed at commuting, not at their goal.

C

E

for them, claim survives - "costs €2500 and my bike works fine" -> real

C

, price against

E

### AI: the ultimate E -

1

= your normal way of life -

E

= AI -> expert-level guidance on virtually all topics, given your own critical eye on the output + a creativity partner and automation tool - Common argument: "soulless, gimmick, hype, bubble" - **My request:** "Prove cost over nonzero added value" - "talking to a bot replaces the friend I should've called" -> judgment call, genuinely

C

E

for some - "my most personal stuff on someone's server" -> privacy cost, price it yourself - "it states wrong things as confidently as right things" -> real

C

, already priced into

E

: the critical eye is the method, not a concession