> You seem to say your definition of "good enough" is based on good, risk-based judgement. Not at all. I said that "good enough" is a contextual, subjective ju

> You seem to say your definition of "good enough" is based on good, risk-based judgement. Not at all. I said that "good enough" is a contextual, subjective judgement and is a critical part of software engineering. The idiom "good enough" says nothing about quality of that subjective judgment, despite your insistence that it does. > I'm saying people's cognitive biases can lead to them discounting risk without good evidence because it results in a decision they are emotionally attached to Of course cognitive biases (and all sorts of other things) can degrade judgment. That doesn't mean that we should try to get by without it. We seem to be in agreement on this. > that is not the context that the term "good enough" is generally used in practice. Here you are simply wrong. "Good enough" means " adequate but not perfect, not "sub-standard". While it is possible you have been operating in a cultural bubble where that term is only used to mean "sub-standard", in this context the meaning of "good enough" that is being used has been clarified repeatedly but you insist that only your experience with the term matters and thus everyone must use your definition. Instead of working to understand what people are saying, you assume that they are using your definition. Perhaps this sort of assumption explains why you somehow missed out on noticing everyone who uses that term in the normal way. Seriously, go look as some definitions and try asking people what they mean when they use the term. > That point of digression between what I'm saying and what you're interpreting seemed to fly right by you Another example of you not really listening. I've repeatedly pointed out this exact divergence.