It works (and should work) both ways. Main reason is that abandoning the principles doesn't automatically mean innovation. Most of the time it's just tradeoff between safety/cost and perceived convenience. And quite often the convenience is illusory because the costs are simply pushed to someone else or just delayed.
Principles are products of practice, not the reverse
41–42 of 42 posts
Re: Principles are products of practice, not the reverse
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that most aren't. Most principals I've heard seem to happen because they look good on paper or sound smart in a meeting.
Heh, the ones that sound good are the ones that people spent time refining and proving to themselves. For example, the one I primarily live by is “Do whatever you want as long as you are willing to pay the price and deal with the consequences.” It’s quite nuanced, in reality, because there are always unforeseen consequences in any action, and there may also be hidden costs. This principle is a bit weird to frame some…
Good points. The reason I equated "Rule of Thu8mn" with "Principle" is that neither is always correct. They are abstractions that cannot list all possible details, therefore they apply in many or most situations but not all.
People say they "live by their principles" but I don't think that always is the case for them, in every situation anyway.
Rule-of-Thumb comes from electro-magnetism I believe and it's point is it makes something more complicated easy to remember.
https://www.electricaltechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020...
