> There is a big difference in testing whether something is needed in the near future or you simply stick to your guns and blindly dictate how you believe the f

> There is a big difference in testing whether something is needed in the near future or you simply stick to your guns and blindly dictate how you believe the future will look like. There are innumerable successful examples of committing blindly toward a future few people believe in. These are often cases where the objective evidence of success is very limited. If the objective evidence existed then "everyone would be doing it". This is the crux of my disagreement. Of course we'll both agree that applying the wrong/stupid abstraction is wrong. But that's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about this quote specifically: > Don't look into the future. Because you cannot. And you are both naive and arrogant if you believe you can. Deal with what is known now! Perhaps you need to reframe this point to make it more clear? > Don't look into the future. Because you cannot. This is silly for all the aforementioned reasons. Especially when innovating in tech! > And you are both naive and arrogant if you believe you can. Calling someone arrogant for attempting to predict the future in technology. Come on, man. > Deal with what is known now! What is known now is what everyone else knows now. Unless you're dealing with the _extremely_ rare case where you have access to information no one else does, innovation requires one to commit to the unknown.