>With all due respect, if the idea is good, then it will happen

If this is true, companies wouldn't fail all the time.

Many good ideas have multiple failed attempts wrt implementation.

Eg: if we accept that transcontinental rail spanning the USofA was a good idea, then it can be seen that several wanna be railroad barons fell by the wayside.

▲

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-]

This logic means you can’t ever be wrong because any case of a good idea not being implemented can be hand waved away as “not yet.”

Edit: you changed your comment a lot

▲

II2II a day ago | parent | next [-]

Take a look at the technology sitting in front of you. How many ideas does it incorporate that were tried and failed, or were tried but languished in niche markets for decades before they became an everyday thing?

A lot of ideas fail because they're not ready: they are expensive, they are not reliable (yet), the world is not ready for them. None of those reasons mean an idea is bad. They simply mean it will take more time and effort for them to work.

▲

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-]

“a lot of ideas fail because they’re not ready” =/= “all good ideas win out”

▲

II2II 15 hours ago | parent [-]

True, but you don't know which ideas are going to win out until they have won out (or an objectively better idea replaces them).

	▲	Forgeties79 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. I do not think we are anywhere near the original conversation anymore, however. I certainly never said anything that contradicts your comment. He had a comment that said, essentially, “all good ideas eventually win out.” He then heavily edited his comment after I responded. That could be the source of confusion for you here.

▲

defrost a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> This logic means

No, it doesn't. Maybe wind back on the absolutism a little and look to the wide world where things happen. Warts and all.

▲

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-]

I am arguing it does. Condescending, dismissive responses aren’t arguments. I am not being absolutist, I am saying you are making it impossible to disagree by definition.

I am down to discuss this if you want to but this isn’t exactly a great start to a productive conversation.

▲

defrost a day ago | parent [-]

> but this isn’t exactly a great start to a productive conversation.

My thought entirely. Perhaps you think I'm in the camp that believes all good ides come to fruition.

My position is that the world is complex, there are "good ideas" that have a time frame, should they not be implemented with that time frame their time has passed and they're no longer good ideas.

That said, my response above stands - just because a good idea exists and is timely, it does not follow that failures to implement cannot happen, nor does it mean that at least one attempt must succeed, further there are cases with a time window, I have a great idea for improving horse drawn ploughing, for example ...

Also, see @II2II 's peer comment above, another take on possible happenings.

Where I take issue with the content of your comment is specifically:

> This logic means ...

the reasoning you use there eludes me.

	▲	Forgeties79 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I’m done man