4 ms·
>if you have no bad outcomes, you may be taking a suboptimal amount of risk That is not the same as what blhack wrote, "If you're failing, you're doing somethi
by differentView 12y ago
>if you have no bad outcomes, you may be taking a suboptimal amount of risk
That is not the same as what blhack wrote, "If you're failing, you're doing something right."
you: zero failures = doing something wrong
blhack: any failure = doing something right
blhack's statement is clearly ridiculous.
- blhack 12y agoYour understanding of what I said is also clearly ridiculous. In context, what I am saying is pretty obviously meant to be taken as: Failure is part of taking risk. Risk is part of doing things that are difficult. Doing things that are difficult is part of progress. Progress is something that I consider "right". And then put further into context, with regards to spectacular failures like the one today: Don't beat yourself up [engineers who worked on orbital] because the very difficult thing that you were doing failed. That is what makes that very difficult thing noteworthy.
- dang 12y agoThis is an example of how the signal/noise ratio on HN can be improved by the Principle of Charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity. blhack's comment was ambiguous. Under some interpretations it is ridiculous, but under others it is sensible. By interpreting charitably, we can avoid a fair bit of two of the worst things on HN: abrasiveness and nitpicking. (Edit: and protracted disputes. So, three of the worst things on HN.)