3 ms·

Fine, so don't call it "success!". It's a step on the way to (possible) success, but the hypersensitivity isn't helping anyone.

by aedron 7y ago

ehnto 7y ago
Negatively responding to failure during a test is like negatively responding to someone asking a question. I am sure the circlejerk gets annoying, but it's at least got a constructive outcome. It's obviously not going to affect professionals and companies, but if you apply your view to students or people trying to work out new problems you could dissuade them from being inquisitive.
Ari_Ugwu 7y ago
The semantics these days. Trade "success" for "progress"....but then also replace "accident" with "test result". Works both ways, so does the hyper-sensitivity. We are silly animals. Links I can't help but click on....comments I can't help to respond to. The algorithms are winning.
dwild 7y ago
You sound like the one hypersensitive here...
ksec 7y ago
If my test were designed for failures, my test results expect it to fail, and it did, then I call it a success. Science is about testing what we think we know, measuring it and confirming it. In a Chemistry Lab, I put two elements together to show off a little explosion to my students, if it did. It was a successful demonstration, if it didn't go according to plan, it was a failure. And we will be wondering why this didn't work. The OP said it from his perspective of pathfinder. And I assume these results were expected. And if it didn't blew up and they did not understand why it didn't, it create more uncertainty and variables during real launch. And I am sure everyone would want to minimise of that happening. I am not sure how hard this is to see thing from his perspective, I would agree if Elon calling it a success would be hyperbole, but the OP stated he is a pathfinder, and finding out failure is exactly his job.

3 ms·

Fine, so don't call it "success!". It's a step on the way to (possible) success, but the hypersensitivity isn't helping anyone.

by aedron 7y ago

Fine, so don't call it "success!". It's a step on the way to (possible) success, but the hypersensitivity isn't helping anyone.

ehnto 7y ago
Negatively responding to failure during a test is like negatively responding to someone asking a question. I am sure the circlejerk gets annoying, but it's at least got a constructive outcome. It's obviously not going to affect professionals and companies, but if you apply your view to students or people trying to work out new problems you could dissuade them from being inquisitive.
Ari_Ugwu 7y ago
The semantics these days. Trade "success" for "progress"....but then also replace "accident" with "test result". Works both ways, so does the hyper-sensitivity. We are silly animals. Links I can't help but click on....comments I can't help to respond to. The algorithms are winning.
dwild 7y ago
You sound like the one hypersensitive here...
ksec 7y ago
If my test were designed for failures, my test results expect it to fail, and it did, then I call it a success. Science is about testing what we think we know, measuring it and confirming it. In a Chemistry Lab, I put two elements together to show off a little explosion to my students, if it did. It was a successful demonstration, if it didn't go according to plan, it was a failure. And we will be wondering why this didn't work. The OP said it from his perspective of pathfinder. And I assume these results were expected. And if it didn't blew up and they did not understand why it didn't, it create more uncertainty and variables during real launch. And I am sure everyone would want to minimise of that happening. I am not sure how hard this is to see thing from his perspective, I would agree if Elon calling it a success would be hyperbole, but the OP stated he is a pathfinder, and finding out failure is exactly his job.