3 ms·
Totally agree on the abuse of LPs in general. Abuse of "disagree and commit" is a pet peeve. Two-way doors are often misunderstood imo. It's not about the deci
by nighthawk454 3y ago
Totally agree on the abuse of LPs in general. Abuse of "disagree and commit" is a pet peeve.
Two-way doors are often misunderstood imo. It's not about the decision it's about the cost of reversal. If you have Option A and B, then sometimes the cost of implementing A + validating A + business cost of A being wrong + reverting A + implementing B < bikeshedding the A-vs-B decision in advance.
Everything's grey. The principle is about realizing which side of the inequality it's probably on.
- roguas 3y agoTo combine with previous "techdebt" mentioned. I dislike tech debt, as term because it causes false analogy. Prefer friction, which is how much harder/longer development becomes as compared to your original estimate. While observing friction you get better idea and can consider actual cost of techdebt. There are many situation where you may care less for techdebt, you have a dev script that looks bad, but you likely just gonna replace it fully when time is right. Yet friction is painful as it slows you. Debt analogy perhaps becomes more viable now, with high interest rates. This is what tech debt is, its not debt on 0% interest rates, its debt in high interest rate scenario, everything slows down.