An aggressive first principles approach often leads otherwise well-intentioned technologists into strategic / ideological dead-ends.
Do we do things because it's the "right thing" to do in the moment, or because of the final outcome that will eventually result?
The most ideal answer is somewhere in the middle. I am far more interested in the total area under the curve than a single instant in time.
In lieu of intentional higher order thinking, simply working backward from your customer on a regular basis will generally accomplish the same outcomes.
I completely disagree. Are you going to operate from principles or from conventions?
Higher order thinking is actually substantially more common, like overwhelming so. Higher order thinking is the application of known patterns, such as frameworks and common tools. Many people often dismiss doing the right thing for matters of convenience, which is the basis of tech debt.
First principles are not elusive. State your goals and limitations first. Then proceed accordingly.
bob1029 · · focus · HN ↗
An aggressive first principles approach often leads otherwise well-intentioned technologists into strategic / ideological dead-ends.
Do we do things because it's the "right thing" to do in the moment, or because of the final outcome that will eventually result?
The most ideal answer is somewhere in the middle. I am far more interested in the total area under the curve than a single instant in time.
In lieu of intentional higher order thinking, simply working backward from your customer on a regular basis will generally accomplish the same outcomes.
austin-cheney · · focus · HN ↗
Higher order thinking is actually substantially more common, like overwhelming so. Higher order thinking is the application of known patterns, such as frameworks and common tools. Many people often dismiss doing the right thing for matters of convenience, which is the basis of tech debt.
First principles are not elusive. State your goals and limitations first. Then proceed accordingly.