Broadly speaking, humans are prone to get into serious trouble when they attempt massive-scale things straight out of the gate, but they also don't try to do nearly *enough* things
Show this thread
I often struggle to explain that: 1. Generally, the range of things you could possibly do that are worse than nothing is larger than the range of things that are better AND 2. Trying most things is cheap & when trying in earnest, humans are good filterers of possibility space
-
-
-
They also fuck up *much, much* more when they're incentivized to *look like* they're trying to do something rather than incentivized to actually do the thing, and it's not always clear to anyone involved which of the two is happening or that there is a distinction at all
Show this thread -
If it's not clear why this is, consider this: Is it easier to solve a very hard problem, or... ...to accidentally/subtly introduce or neglect obstacles that you can later use as evidence that it wasn't your fault that the problem didn't get solved?https://twitter.com/webdevmason/status/1222681556960940033?s=21 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In the same vein I regularly tell my organization that a bad decision is better than no decision. Do not employ avoidance. Don’t dither. If we “break” something we sort out what went wrong, learn, fix and move ahead. Despise waiting. Waiting sucks
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Basically, (1)The best thing you can do is the right thing. (2) Next best is the wrong thing. (3) The worst, is nothing. Arguably, 1 & 2 are interchangable if you learn something from 2.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.