[anoy8888]

The only way to win here is to make it expensive to produce lies . Make people take responsibility of the consequences and punish them .

[epistasis]

The consequences already exist, but are not enough to prevent the fraud. The linked article speaks of criminal charges. And here is a CEO going to prison for similar charges of fraud over nuclear construction:

https://www.powermag.com/former-scana-ceo-will-land-in-priso...

Nuclear projects tend to attract fraudsters that are not intimidated by the possibility of jail time.

[belorn]

I would claim that the whole construction industry tend to attract fraudsters that are not intimidated by the possibility of jail time. It is, if I remember right, the largest source of human trafficking in the world.

[verisimi]

Who has the truth though?

[pjc50]

It's not usually difficult to determine whether a nuclear reactor does or does not exist.

[verisimi]

The comment I responded to said:

> The only way to win here is to make it expensive to produce lies .

But which authority can be trusted to provide truth, in order to have a metric on what a lie is? Which authority is even unbiased and impartial?

[epistasis]

Courts.

[verisimi]

Is legal truth, actual truth?

[otterley]

It's close enough, and is good enough to generally satisfy our institutions and culture. The standard shouldn't be, and isn't, objective perfection.

[ben_w]

In the case of the opening story in the link, yes.

[jessriedel]

Prediction markets

[verisimi]

Good answer, but isn't that a practical answer, based on consensus? Ie its what people believe is true, but might not be actually true.

[jessriedel]

They are useful for things that become less ambiguous in the future.

[croes]

Lehman Brothers anyone?