71–80 of 104 posts
> Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day. It’s decision making. Prioritizing. Deciding that one thing is more important than another. It's AI slop. Edit: as pointed to me, it says 2018. I'd be damned. Guess that makes it merely part of the "LinkedIn post" training set pushing AI towards such style!
This essay was published in December 2018.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise. Why are we attempting to change the meaning of the word compromise? “compromise” and “has trade-offs” are NOT synonymous. The antithesis of compromise is to make strong decisions that WILL alienate people, but will better target your intended audience. That, IMHO, is a great thing.
If you avoid making strong decisions that’s usually also a trade-off since you trade let’s say peace of mind / not alienating people with having a sharp spike.
I often urge people to do deliberate trade-offs instead of just waiting it out.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise. Why are we attempting to change the meaning of the word compromise? “compromise” and “has trade-offs” are NOT synonymous. The antithesis of compromise is to make strong decisions that WILL alienate people, but will better target your intended audience. That, IMHO, is a great thing.
> Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day.
because compromise usually means "the wrong answer because an imbecile is necessary for consensus"
A benevolent and competent Authoritiarian is the best form of governance, everyone is just worried about the successor. But that nirvana period functions well due to no compromise and the right choices being made in quick succession.
> Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day. It’s decision making. Prioritizing. Deciding that one thing is more important than another. It's AI slop. Edit: as pointed to me, it says 2018. I'd be damned. Guess that makes it merely part of the "LinkedIn post" training set pushing AI towards such style!
All the very successful-yet-failing companies were unable to understand these compromises, and each was overturned by a newcomer that could (usually due to necessity, of course)
Of course, what “good results” are depends entirely on what you’re trying to accomplish, which is why picking the right tool for the job is so important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People seem focused on the interpersonal conflict angle in the comments here, i.e. winning and losing in a battle of wills. I think its just as important to realize ideas themselves can be conflicted or contradictory, and that practical action requires compromise. Many seductive ideas may not be well-formed if you really dig deeply enough. It's not just economic or political pragmatism. Even the solo designer/thinker…
I believe people are focusing on that because that's a traditional meaning of the word — Merriam-Webster uses "concession" in 2 out of 3 definitions. I would say that an impersonal "compromise" was more of a figure of speech that evolved into another meaning of the word. The OP here talks about a compromise between two ideas, which means that it could be a single person making trade-offs based on their conscious choi…
If it was empty and you filled it half way, it’s half full. If it was full and you drank half, it’s half empty.