3 ms·

There is value in critically evaluating ideas and possible endeavors. On the other hand, demanding an answer to every little pocket of uncertainty creates a hug

There is value in critically evaluating ideas and possible endeavors. On the other hand, demanding an answer to every little pocket of uncertainty creates a huge burden that prevents exploration. It's one thing to be exhaustive in the criticism by examining individual scenarios, evaluating cost benefit in a measurable way, etc. That doesn't seem to be what the author is describing. He's describing critical & low effort cheap shots.

wakamoleguy 6mo ago
These are all risks. Not all risks need to be mitigated, but some can be. Others can be accepted. Saying “Python is too slow for production scale, but our goal is a small proof of concept,” is a valid answer even if it doesn’t “solve” the complaint. And if you don’t even have that answer, then the burden is not your problem. The lack of due diligence is.
torben-friis 6mo ago
>On the other hand, demanding an answer to every little pocket of uncertainty creates a huge burden that prevents exploration. How do you explore an idea, other than trying to shoot it down and seeing if it survives the shot?
- majormajor 6mo ago
  By proceeding with things that will gather more data—such as prototyping, or further independent research—vs spinning indefinitely on "hypothetical" discussion-only shots. How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"?
  - Jensson 6mo ago
    > How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"? That is the point, knowing that it is a point we want to test is valuable. If person B there didn't say he thought it would be an issue you probably wouldn't have tested it, it was valuable for him to say that.
- jbay808 6mo ago
  You can fire the shot and then patch the hole at the same time, proposing solutions to the same problem you pointed out, rather than just shooting and letting one person handle defense from every attack.
Dylan16807 6mo ago
These are the table stakes of uncertainty, not delving into every little pocket. If the language and ops are under question, this sounds like an entire new project or significant extension. The bit of time it takes to answer all those questions is worth it.
bawolff 6mo ago
> He's describing critical & low effort cheap shots. The examples he used included: the plan depends on a different team providing labour and that team is not on board, the business plan for the idea does not make sense. I suppose they are low effort in the sense that they are very basic 101 criticisms, but i wouldn't call them cheap shots. Literally no plan is ever going to work if it involves the labour of others without their (or their supperiors) consent. It seems to me a very valid criticism to make. That doesn't mean its the end of the idea, it means you need to have a plan to either get the other stakeholders on board, or a plan to do it without them.
- sfink 6mo ago
  It's not a plan, it's an idea. You're shooting down an idea for not being a plan. The best person for coming up with the idea will probably also come up with some of the pieces of the plan, but they're unlikely to be the best person to figure out all of it. That's why you have a company not a sole proprietorship.
  - zephen 6mo ago
    The problem with this is, that the article literally says: > The person proposing has been thinking about this for weeks or months. They've tested pieces of it in their head or even built proofs of concept. They understand things about the idea that aren't obvious yet. And they're trying to explain all of this to a room full of people encountering it for the first time. If they did that much upfront work, it's more than an idea. And if it's that easily shot down, they should have done even more upfront work and probably slowly gotten others involved. Honestly, it sounds like someone so desperate for credit, so worried that someone will steal the idea, that they feel compelled to unveil it in a large gathering that was convened for some other purpose. And that never goes well. Ideas truly are a dime a dozen. If one gets shot down, then you can reflect whether that was warranted, and try again with the same idea if not. If you're really emotionally invested in it, as the guy writing the article seems to be, then you damn well better have more than just an idea, and you should understand enough about human nature to slowly try to bring individuals onboard to help before you put it out in front of a big crowd.
  - 6mo ago

wakamoleguy 6mo ago

These are all risks. Not all risks need to be mitigated, but some can be. Others can be accepted. Saying “Python is too slow for production scale, but our goal is a small proof of concept,” is a valid answer even if it doesn’t “solve” the complaint. And if you don’t even have that answer, then the burden is not your problem. The lack of due diligence is.

torben-friis 6mo ago

>On the other hand, demanding an answer to every little pocket of uncertainty creates a huge burden that prevents exploration. How do you explore an idea, other than trying to shoot it down and seeing if it survives the shot?

majormajor 6mo ago
By proceeding with things that will gather more data—such as prototyping, or further independent research—vs spinning indefinitely on "hypothetical" discussion-only shots. How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"?
- Jensson 6mo ago
  > How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"? That is the point, knowing that it is a point we want to test is valuable. If person B there didn't say he thought it would be an issue you probably wouldn't have tested it, it was valuable for him to say that.
jbay808 6mo ago
You can fire the shot and then patch the hole at the same time, proposing solutions to the same problem you pointed out, rather than just shooting and letting one person handle defense from every attack.

Dylan16807 6mo ago

These are the table stakes of uncertainty, not delving into every little pocket. If the language and ops are under question, this sounds like an entire new project or significant extension. The bit of time it takes to answer all those questions is worth it.

bawolff 6mo ago

> He's describing critical & low effort cheap shots. The examples he used included: the plan depends on a different team providing labour and that team is not on board, the business plan for the idea does not make sense. I suppose they are low effort in the sense that they are very basic 101 criticisms, but i wouldn't call them cheap shots. Literally no plan is ever going to work if it involves the labour of others without their (or their supperiors) consent. It seems to me a very valid criticism to make. That doesn't mean its the end of the idea, it means you need to have a plan to either get the other stakeholders on board, or a plan to do it without them.

sfink 6mo ago
It's not a plan, it's an idea. You're shooting down an idea for not being a plan. The best person for coming up with the idea will probably also come up with some of the pieces of the plan, but they're unlikely to be the best person to figure out all of it. That's why you have a company not a sole proprietorship.
- zephen 6mo ago
  The problem with this is, that the article literally says: > The person proposing has been thinking about this for weeks or months. They've tested pieces of it in their head or even built proofs of concept. They understand things about the idea that aren't obvious yet. And they're trying to explain all of this to a room full of people encountering it for the first time. If they did that much upfront work, it's more than an idea. And if it's that easily shot down, they should have done even more upfront work and probably slowly gotten others involved. Honestly, it sounds like someone so desperate for credit, so worried that someone will steal the idea, that they feel compelled to unveil it in a large gathering that was convened for some other purpose. And that never goes well. Ideas truly are a dime a dozen. If one gets shot down, then you can reflect whether that was warranted, and try again with the same idea if not. If you're really emotionally invested in it, as the guy writing the article seems to be, then you damn well better have more than just an idea, and you should understand enough about human nature to slowly try to bring individuals onboard to help before you put it out in front of a big crowd.
- 6mo ago