4 ms·

It's almost as if you didn't read the first sentence in your own link, which states that this "is a theorized phenomenon", not some established law of practical

by eviks 3y ago

It's almost as if you didn't read the first sentence in your own link, which states that this "is a theorized phenomenon", not some established law of practical software development nature. So instead of knee-jerk posting of a "proof" as a response to a criticism of a knee-jerk pointing to the existence of some risk or pointing to some straw man of zero risks you might actually realize that the main thing that matters for such an assessment is an actual assessment

coldtea 3y ago
It's almost as if you let the whole point fly over your head, and just hanged on the first thing you read on the link that could serve as a hail Mary attempt to build a semblance of an argument. Yes, it's a "is a theorized phenomenon", it's not a "law of practical software development nature". The whole point is the statistical relevance of it on accessing such a risk - not it being some kind of absolute law. It's the second time in this argument thread that you point to the lack of absolute guarantees (as if anybody said that long standing projects don't fail at all, or as if anybody said that the Lindy Effect is some absolute law), failing to see that they don't mean that long-term vs short-term project survivorship rate is the same. You know that outcomes can have probabilities attached to them too, not just absolute guarantees, and that it's the former that are the most common tool for accessing risks, right? >you might actually realize that the main thing that matters for such an assessment is an actual assessment You might not actually realize that in practice any such an actual assessment will be based on risk factors, statistical observations, and handy heuristics for longevity such as the Lindy Effect. Who would have thought, huh?
- eviks 3y ago
  > The whole point is the statistical relevance of it on accessing such a risk - not it being some kind of absolute law. Someone letting the whole point fly over one's head again. You have no statistics! You're just using some empty law to support lazy thinking > to the lack of absolute guarantees That's just your second straw man. I know these "laws", were they true, wouldn't be absolute. You just can't understand that you don't have any data to support your claim, so when I point that out, you mislead yourself into thinking I demand absolutes

by eviks 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

It's almost as if you let the whole point fly over your head, and just hanged on the first thing you read on the link that could serve as a hail Mary attempt to build a semblance of an argument. Yes, it's a "is a theorized phenomenon", it's not a "law of practical software development nature". The whole point is the statistical relevance of it on accessing such a risk - not it being some kind of absolute law. It's the second time in this argument thread that you point to the lack of absolute guarantees (as if anybody said that long standing projects don't fail at all, or as if anybody said that the Lindy Effect is some absolute law), failing to see that they don't mean that long-term vs short-term project survivorship rate is the same. You know that outcomes can have probabilities attached to them too, not just absolute guarantees, and that it's the former that are the most common tool for accessing risks, right? >you might actually realize that the main thing that matters for such an assessment is an actual assessment You might not actually realize that in practice any such an actual assessment will be based on risk factors, statistical observations, and handy heuristics for longevity such as the Lindy Effect. Who would have thought, huh?

eviks 3y ago
> The whole point is the statistical relevance of it on accessing such a risk - not it being some kind of absolute law. Someone letting the whole point fly over one's head again. You have no statistics! You're just using some empty law to support lazy thinking > to the lack of absolute guarantees That's just your second straw man. I know these "laws", were they true, wouldn't be absolute. You just can't understand that you don't have any data to support your claim, so when I point that out, you mislead yourself into thinking I demand absolutes