Man, imagine being the White House translator the next four years. Whoever wins, you'll be stuck there looking apologetically at the guests going "sorry dude, IDK either".
I'd define it as "people getting fired and profit being lost". If neither the people involved nor the overarching corporate entity suffered greater cost that the benefit, then the endeavour was a net gain, regardless of externalities.
Looking through it now, I believe the conversation I was in was referencing this: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2014236 , specifically because it's not a random group of scans. It's a rather ambitious study, from 1989, and is, as it was told to me, where the journos got ahold of the "25" number. In fact, the first article you link's sources seem to all have the 1999 version as their first reference, probably because they're all pre-2014. No mention of money in the paper, obviously, but it does talk of the study as "ongoing", and I couldn't find a newer followup, so, uh, yeah.
As I was digging, though, I ran into this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8 , so the number you go with, if it even makes sense to go with a number, is still a matter of what you want to measure, I'd say.
Gee, it's almost like they expected Macron to hemm, haw, deliberate, and 12 other words for "stall", but ultimately make the hard, difficult, bitter, but undeniably necessary and honourable decision and join Le Pen in the government, you know, for the good of the nation.
And then the godless fucking commiesRUINED IT ALL!!!
IIRC, that study didn't conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it's just that what was measured wasn't really development, but "change".
IIRC, the secessions were preceeded by a period where it was sort of an open secret of what's gonna happen, with stuff like future confederate generals transferring cannon stock to southern bases, and moving themselves and their families south, and the North by and large stood by and let it happen under the rationale that "we shouldn't anger them, they may still come around". To the point that, again, IIRC, the commander of Fort Sumter saw trouble brewing across the river and requested reinforcements just before the war, and was turned down.
Man, imagine being the White House translator the next four years. Whoever wins, you'll be stuck there looking apologetically at the guests going "sorry dude, IDK either".