What is risk management?

Once you really want to define something, you fall into the trap of academicism. But if there is no definition, it is indeed inconvenient for everyone to clarify its scope. What I want to say is that everyone can have different understandings and explanations of the same thing. If you only take the part that everyone agrees on as its definition, you will obviously face a narrow question; if you want to incorporate all elements , you may come up with a long and boring explanation. As time goes by, many definitions need to be continuously updated. Therefore, a definition that can be used for almost 10 years is acceptable. Don't take it too seriously. The key is that you can agree with most of it, or you agree that it has helped you generally describe that thing. Risk is a kind of uncertainty. Basically, the uncertainty we care about is the uncertainty that will cost us (either financially or emotionally). Risk management studies how to reduce or avoid these negative uncertainties as much as possible. Previous people have summarized that there are several ways to deal with risks: elimination (for those risks that can be avoided after taking certain measures to prevent them), avoidance (for those risks that cannot be eliminated by taking certain measures, but you can choose not to face them) (for risks that cannot be eliminated and must be faced). Elimination and avoidance are easy decisions to make, and most of what people face in life is how to take risks in a regular manner. To put it more academically, it is how to maximize (optimize) your own welfare function under limited conditions. If it is within your capabilities, consider static constraints first and then dynamic constraints. If you want to be academically published, you must add stochastic optimization. paradigm (well, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, please forgive my super bad joke and ignore the above sentence). To give an easy-to-understand example, assuming that smoking causes lung cancer (in medicine, there seems to be no clear evidence, although most people firmly believe this assertion, including myself), then it is very simple, you must avoid smoking that does not cause lung cancer. , just don’t smoke. This is how to avoid it. If a cigarette holder is invented after the development of science and technology, and it is said that after using it, it can completely prevent lung cancer, then comrades who want to smoke but do not want to get lung cancer will be in luck. They can just choose to use this cigarette holder when smoking. This is the way to eliminate it. Of course, what is filtered is nicotine, and nicotine is likely to be the cause of lung cancer, and nicotine is likely to be the chemical element that brings pleasure to people who are willing to smoke. Therefore, this cigarette holder is likely to filter out the causative factors while also filtering out the effects of smoking. pleasure. Therefore, if you want pleasure, you must take the risk of getting sick. God, life, this is life, and there are many choices like this in life. Therefore, you can decide to integrate the pleasure brought by smoking and the pain and money losses that smoking may cause illness and subsequent treatment into a measurement formula (academically called the objective function). Of course, buying cigarettes costs money, and the better the cigarettes, the more expensive they are. And the money you have to buy cigarettes may be limited. Therefore, your question is how to ensure regular and limited smoking so that you can live a healthy and happy life as financially sustainable as possible. As for how many cigarettes and brand of cigarettes you want to smoke in a day, it is your decision whether to smoke while walking or when you act like a thinker. This is what I call "regular tolerance".