I meant it earnestly! If I misunderstood, I have one other guy in here who made the same mistake. Your original comment reads like you’re against the concept of considering unpleasant counterfactuals in general.
Pretty sure OP considered the counterfactual and determined it was such a low probability, the alternative utility gain too low, that it shouldn't matter in the pursuit of happiness.
Fair point, apologies I took your comment the wrong way. As the sibling of this comment mentions, that wasn’t what I meant, but can see how my original comment left room for interpretation.
Taking calculated risks isn't recklessness.