3 ms·

Your coin flip is in a vacuum though. What is this innovation replacing? Did I previously have to roll a 100-sided die? If so, that coin flip sounds really d

Your coin flip is in a vacuum though. What is this innovation replacing? Did I previously have to roll a 100-sided die? If so, that coin flip sounds really damn good. I feel like Technology Connections did a better approach to the same topic of innovation: https://youtu.be/GiYO1TObNz8?t=335 https://youtu.be/GiYO1TObNz8?t=335 The idea is "But Sometimes". That is, this new innovation is great in all these areas, but sometimes it's worse. That then becomes a locus for the FUD campaigns -- justified or not. It's also the same kind of thing heard in "no one was ever fired for picking IBM". Fear of an unknown potentially bad outcome outweighs all the known bad outcomes which are improved by the innovation.

SubuSS 6y ago
I don't understand the advantage of rolling a 100side die vs 99% biased coin flip - assuming they are balanced right, both should be equivalent. I was just remarking on the outright pointers in those two points that status quo is bad / speed of change is god etc. - There is a difference between being against change and being resistant to change. I am all for incremental changes because I strongly believe existing tested and hairy systems got there by handling a million corner cases that the new one is probably going to solve all over again. Replacement systems become warranted only in those cases where earlier systems have lost any form of iterability and are stuck per-say and have been obsoleted in some ways. Most of the other scenarios are just developer job-security :) Again all the above apply only for reasonably complicated systems. I am all for hello world's getting rewritten every day.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Your example was a 0.001% to 99.999% ratio, which is like rolling a 100,000 sided die, if I understand correctly. That would be much safer than rolling a 100-sided die (1% chance to fail) the same number of times.

SubuSS 6y ago

I don't understand the advantage of rolling a 100side die vs 99% biased coin flip - assuming they are balanced right, both should be equivalent. I was just remarking on the outright pointers in those two points that status quo is bad / speed of change is god etc. - There is a difference between being against change and being resistant to change. I am all for incremental changes because I strongly believe existing tested and hairy systems got there by handling a million corner cases that the new one is probably going to solve all over again. Replacement systems become warranted only in those cases where earlier systems have lost any form of iterability and are stuck per-say and have been obsoleted in some ways. Most of the other scenarios are just developer job-security :) Again all the above apply only for reasonably complicated systems. I am all for hello world's getting rewritten every day.

1123581321 6y ago
Your example was a 0.001% to 99.999% ratio, which is like rolling a 100,000 sided die, if I understand correctly. That would be much safer than rolling a 100-sided die (1% chance to fail) the same number of times.