3 ms·

You are choosing an outcome which you think will happen in the future. It is not certain that this outcome will happen.

inopinatus 10y ago
I think a gamble needs to be predominantly a game of chance. Merely having an outcome that isn't certain would cause any choice to be labelled a "gamble", from crossing the road to turning on the kettle. Instead I believe choosing the right software platform is predominantly a game of skill and experience. Remember that old canard, "a poor craftsperson blames their tools"; the corollary is that a good craftsperson chooses good tools.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  Sports betting is one of the most ancient and most popular form of gambling, even while the actual games are, as you say, games of skill and experience. A good craftsman can rationally choose tool A over tool B, however, for software platforms it is a major gamble whether A v2 will still be preferable to B v2 - it is (a) unknown, not decided by A being "better" than B, and (b) generally outside of your control.
  - inopinatus 10y ago
    In sports betting, the gambler has no control over the parameters or the outcome of the game. Indeed when they do it is considered match fixing and may be illegal. In software tool/platform/protocol/standards selection, the person making the choice is a direct participant in the game, can control the local (and possibly global) quality of the outcome, and has (or should have) a priori knowledge of the characteristics and context that will shape the future viability of their choice. Sometimes that requires a really deep dive into technical documentation and/or source code; sometimes it means assessing product origins, or the community/ecosystem around it; sometimes it means looking for warning signs (e.g. patent encumbrance, a toxic vendor, unnecessary interoperability barriers, opaque licensing or pricing); it almost always means understanding the values & norms & preferences of the people who'll be bound by your choice. Usually a combination of all these things and more. The argument that we can't tell, in advance, doesn't wash with me; it is not borne out by my experience of being either the decision maker or decision victim, and just sounds like an excuse for a bad decision and/or poor execution. What happens later is people saying "I made a bet and lost", a terrible post-mortem that smacks of denial, and one I've heard all too often. But whenever I've make a wrong call - and I've made plenty over the years - there was always, always, always some factor that I missed. Whenever I've made a decision that turned out really well, it has always been on the back of research and analysis and reasoning, possibly (and increasingly with experience) guided by gut feeling. "I made a mistake, what can I learn from it?" is the only hindsight I tolerate for myself and strongly encourage in others, and it is not compatible with framing decision-making as a gamble.

I think a gamble needs to be predominantly a game of chance. Merely having an outcome that isn't certain would cause any choice to be labelled a "gamble", from crossing the road to turning on the kettle. Instead I believe choosing the right software platform is predominantly a game of skill and experience. Remember that old canard, "a poor craftsperson blames their tools"; the corollary is that a good craftsperson chooses good tools.

PeterisP 10y ago
Sports betting is one of the most ancient and most popular form of gambling, even while the actual games are, as you say, games of skill and experience. A good craftsman can rationally choose tool A over tool B, however, for software platforms it is a major gamble whether A v2 will still be preferable to B v2 - it is (a) unknown, not decided by A being "better" than B, and (b) generally outside of your control.
- inopinatus 10y ago
  In sports betting, the gambler has no control over the parameters or the outcome of the game. Indeed when they do it is considered match fixing and may be illegal. In software tool/platform/protocol/standards selection, the person making the choice is a direct participant in the game, can control the local (and possibly global) quality of the outcome, and has (or should have) a priori knowledge of the characteristics and context that will shape the future viability of their choice. Sometimes that requires a really deep dive into technical documentation and/or source code; sometimes it means assessing product origins, or the community/ecosystem around it; sometimes it means looking for warning signs (e.g. patent encumbrance, a toxic vendor, unnecessary interoperability barriers, opaque licensing or pricing); it almost always means understanding the values & norms & preferences of the people who'll be bound by your choice. Usually a combination of all these things and more. The argument that we can't tell, in advance, doesn't wash with me; it is not borne out by my experience of being either the decision maker or decision victim, and just sounds like an excuse for a bad decision and/or poor execution. What happens later is people saying "I made a bet and lost", a terrible post-mortem that smacks of denial, and one I've heard all too often. But whenever I've make a wrong call - and I've made plenty over the years - there was always, always, always some factor that I missed. Whenever I've made a decision that turned out really well, it has always been on the back of research and analysis and reasoning, possibly (and increasingly with experience) guided by gut feeling. "I made a mistake, what can I learn from it?" is the only hindsight I tolerate for myself and strongly encourage in others, and it is not compatible with framing decision-making as a gamble.