U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
When I was a kid, I thought mistakes were simply bad, and to be avoided. As an adult I realized many problems are best solved by working in two phases, one in which you let yourself make mistakes, followed by a second in which you aggressively fix them.
I know from personal experience that the two-phase approach works in writing, programming, and art (draft = prototype = sketch). Does it work in most fields? And if not, what defines the line between fields where it works and the ones where it doesn't?
Making something often begins with breaking something. Problem solving comes more naturally than creating greatness out of thin air. Self evident flaws often spark solutions that wouldn't have presented themselves otherwise.
So, move fast and break things?
Find a situation where you can move fast and break things with low cost/risk/overhead. Then think and act deliberately on scaling when you have a better product/market fit. Be quick, don’t hurry.
Ernest Hemmingway agreed!
“Write drunk, edit sober”
As an adult you unlearn a lot of what you learned in school. Eg. mistakes are bad and could cause you irreparable harm (grades etc.). Through experience as an adult you learn that life rewards taking calculated risks.
I see the organizing principle as feedback. We won't improve unless we practice in a way that exposes us to our mistakes.
If I remember correctly, this is the distinction drawn by Ericsson et al. between regular and "deliberate" practice. It's what separates the masters from the regular professionals.
I’m not sure it’s quite the same thing but I sometimes think of divergent and convergent phases. One where you generate, and the second where you edit.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
