Just a nitpick, 'cause it was on my mind. 5$ might have been that "different process to lower mistakes". I was wondering how it could still just be $5 to manage risk of damaging a ferarri, myself.
I'm having a difficult time parsing your comment. The $5 from the article was the cost of paying out $10,000 1 in 2000 times. If a different process costs $5 to implement, then they might as well accept the risk as is.
I was trying to say: "What if they've already reduced their risk as much as is reasonable, except for special cases that they see one day every three months: that Ferrari."
