4 ms·
This is why you should only be an optimizer in few, very important areas, and should be a sufficer in the rest: You get paralyzed by this sort of choice. Get a
by gte910h 16y ago
This is why you should only be an optimizer in few, very important areas, and should be a sufficer in the rest: You get paralyzed by this sort of choice.
Get a cheap enough flight, get a good enough understanding of the one feature on the watch you care for (and write it down if possible) and arrange a movie night with your friends without caring if they'd like a slightly different variation just a little better (I mean, hell, they are always able to arrange it if they would).
- bryanh 16y agoI completely agree, and I tend to pass that over into web apps that I build. Don't remove complexity, hide it. That's why I don't really buy whole-heartedly into the "less-is-always-more" school of Jason Fried and company (although you can't not respect the little empire they've built).
- gte910h 16y agoThere was a Joel Spolsky talk on this sorta thing on why Apple's way is better than 37 signals, unless you're really small. Anyone have a link?
- matwood 16y agoThis is what I do, although it took some practice. Not only did I like trying to optimize something like a flight, but I was also competitive about it for some reason. Now I usually check flight twice depending on how far out in the future the trip is going to be. One time to get a base price, and then depending on the trip (and how many flights I saw while checking the base price) I'll book the second time I check. Do I end up with the absolute best price? Probably not, but it also means that once booked I don't have to think about it again.