Meh, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

You shouldn't listen to every nay-sayer. Sometimes criticism is not convincing and it can be a skill separating out useful criticism from unconvincing criticism. However if someone did X in the past and ran into problem Y, you should probably have an answer to why Y is not a problem for your use case or what you plan to do differently to avoid Y.

If your good idea is so lame it can't even take the tiniest bit of criticism, its probably not a good idea.

Like in the article, the criticism seems pretty valid but they aren't really about the idea. If the criticism is that DevOps doesn't want to do it [do you just mean ops? Isnt this the opposite of the concept of devops?], that is not a criticism of your idea, that is a criticism of you failing to get stakeholders on board who you plan to rely on. If the criticism is "i haven't heard customers request this" that is code for you failed to make a compelling business case for your idea. Those are criticisms of you not your idea.

▲

robocat a day ago | parent [-]

> those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

This is a classic meta shutdown - the exact thoughtless criticism the article rails against.

Make the future, deal with the relevant mistakes one discovers on one's path.

There is an infinite number of mistakes to make. It doesn't help to waste oodles of time learning about mistakes made by others under different contexts and constraints.

Avoiding mistakes is hard. Listening, nous and intuition can help. The biggest trick is to learn how to deal with mistakes as they occur (no matter how obvious they might be to someone with sufficient art).

The biggest mistake is to have too much fear of mistakes to even begin a venture.

	▲	bawolff a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Make the future If you are making the future yourself, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Just do what you want. Its your time and effort, nobody else has a claim on it. In the context of the article, the author wanted other people to be involved with implementing his idea. If you want someone else to help, you are going to have to convince them. Nobody wants to put labour into an idea that is half baked, with no clear answer as to why we would want to do it or how we intend to do it.
	▲	zephen 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This is a classic meta shutdown - the exact thoughtless criticism the article rails against. No, it's not. Read the rest of his comment. I agree with it wholeheartedly. The article describes a terrible way of surfacing a new idea, and if you keep trying to get buy-in that way, you will keep failing. > It doesn't help to waste oodles of time learning about mistakes made by others under different contexts and constraints. Intelligence is practically defined by the ability to learn from others' mistakes. > Avoiding mistakes is hard. But useful. I once read about a machinist who started at a new job. His boss caught him trying to rework a piece he had screwed up, took the piece away from him and threw it on the discard pile. "We want you to focus on doing things right the first time, not fixing your mistakes."