41–50 of 68 posts
Tangentially, Taleb tweeted a nice quote yesterday, "You don't do well by trying to be right; it is impossible for humans. You do well by figuring out when you're wrong faster than others do." https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1627765781168619520
It is not impossible for humans to be right. This is an idiotic position.
First object permanence, then two and three and eventually four dimensional tracking. Throwing is easy. Catching tool effort and developing these skills. I recall him reaching blindly at objects as he could recall their position in space, orient his body, and grab them without looking.
Having him catch Frisbees and racquetballs at 2 years gave me insight into what skill and observational development was required. At some point he was able to transition between projecting the path of a rolling object vs a thrown object.
Tangentially, Taleb tweeted a nice quote yesterday, "You don't do well by trying to be right; it is impossible for humans. You do well by figuring out when you're wrong faster than others do." https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1627765781168619520
Strongly agree. We need to put out a constant stream of low-quality products, and iterate quickly to achieve our goals. I used to do the opposite: write high-quality well-tested code, but very often the results weren't useful to the business by the time I was done. It would have been much better to produce a couple "sketches" of the feature first, then the business could kill or refine it as they want. Everyone wins!…
Tangentially, Taleb tweeted a nice quote yesterday, "You don't do well by trying to be right; it is impossible for humans. You do well by figuring out when you're wrong faster than others do." https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1627765781168619520
There's value in shipping an MVP (or multiple MVPs) fast, sure. Cull the failures and iterate the successes. Better than trying to achieve perfection with a forever-delayed product that never ships.
But even the sloppiest, most minimal MVP has to get something extremely right. You need to solve some problem for the user in ways that others haven't.
If you don't get things right enough, you've just trashed your entire brand. Game over.
And sometimes, getting things "right" is literally your entire unique selling point. Look at Apple nailing the iPod's features in ways that its predecessors didn't. Look at Tesla nailing their vehicles' features in ways that its predecessors didn't. Etc.
Tangentially, Taleb tweeted a nice quote yesterday, "You don't do well by trying to be right; it is impossible for humans. You do well by figuring out when you're wrong faster than others do." https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1627765781168619520
It is not impossible for humans to be right. This is an idiotic position.
LazerPig gives a pretty good (albeit irreverent) take on John Boyd... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY
The OODA loop is complete gibberish. It's describing the tip of the iceberg in the most complicated way possible, in an attempt to impress people too incompetent to understand it, written by a man unqualified to talk about it.
It's a complicated subject, over-simplified and then re-complicated to appeal to people who like to put words inside of boxes and connect them with arrows.Spoilers; https://universalpaperclips.fandom.com/wiki/The_OODA_Loop
Every discussion I see of the OODA loop is almost always ridiculously oversimplified to the point of being useless or just plain wrong. I watched a ~2 hour interview on YouTube with a guy who worked alongside Boyd when he was developing the idea, and the way he explained it just clicked and was one of the most beautiful ideas I've seen to date. You mostly see it depicted as a circle, well forget that as it's complete…
Can you share the YouTube video?