5 ms·

I imagine work on that problem will be ongoing long after it’s been figured out for everyone else. Definitely shouldn’t be a prerequisite to starting on the eas

by kgin 6y ago

I imagine work on that problem will be ongoing long after it’s been figured out for everyone else. Definitely shouldn’t be a prerequisite to starting on the easier situations.

nickff 6y ago
Saying "we'll figure it out as we go" is not very convincing to skeptics. Prisons are not a startup that should rapidly pivot, or 'fail-fast'. Why not just focus on a more limited set of objectives, which can be achieved via currently-known means?
- tonystubblebine 6y ago
  Wasn't I clear about limited early objectives? Piece by piece over the course of a hundred years. It's not fail fast. The early pieces are pretty well known and not particularly controversial.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Framing something as a vague hundred year struggle makes it seem both unrealistic and unachievable. It's usually better to set a more limited target, then after you succeed and garner credibility, you propose a new goal. You might think that I am quibbling about marketing, but there's a real chance you never get off the ground with the grand scheme, or your first step fails. The 'big ideas' are often very popular with adherents, and ignored by everyone else.
- prepend 6y ago
  “move quickly and murder things” As a fan of iterations in software development it’s irked me as some of the language has been picked up in the “real world.” Moving fast and breaking things and minimum viable products only work if you’re reliably iterating and changing. It’s not a license to suck and procrastinate and only do fun things and assume someone will figure it out afterwards. I worked with a colleague who had this cargo cult mentality to projects where ve would come in, say crazy stuff, promise everything, hire a random contractor and then move on. Ve called verself a “change agent” but never really changed anything other than the air in the room.
- kgin 6y ago
  Not fail fast, fix incrementally. Why set all or nothing requirements on the change when incremental change can do a lot of good right now?

by kgin 6y ago

I imagine work on that problem will be ongoing long after it’s been figured out for everyone else. Definitely shouldn’t be a prerequisite to starting on the easier situations.

nickff 6y ago

Saying "we'll figure it out as we go" is not very convincing to skeptics. Prisons are not a startup that should rapidly pivot, or 'fail-fast'. Why not just focus on a more limited set of objectives, which can be achieved via currently-known means?

tonystubblebine 6y ago
Wasn't I clear about limited early objectives? Piece by piece over the course of a hundred years. It's not fail fast. The early pieces are pretty well known and not particularly controversial.
- nickff 6y ago
  Framing something as a vague hundred year struggle makes it seem both unrealistic and unachievable. It's usually better to set a more limited target, then after you succeed and garner credibility, you propose a new goal. You might think that I am quibbling about marketing, but there's a real chance you never get off the ground with the grand scheme, or your first step fails. The 'big ideas' are often very popular with adherents, and ignored by everyone else.
prepend 6y ago
“move quickly and murder things” As a fan of iterations in software development it’s irked me as some of the language has been picked up in the “real world.” Moving fast and breaking things and minimum viable products only work if you’re reliably iterating and changing. It’s not a license to suck and procrastinate and only do fun things and assume someone will figure it out afterwards. I worked with a colleague who had this cargo cult mentality to projects where ve would come in, say crazy stuff, promise everything, hire a random contractor and then move on. Ve called verself a “change agent” but never really changed anything other than the air in the room.
kgin 6y ago
Not fail fast, fix incrementally. Why set all or nothing requirements on the change when incremental change can do a lot of good right now?