>On the other hand, demanding an answer to every little pocket of uncertainty creates a huge burden that prevents exploration.

How do you explore an idea, other than trying to shoot it down and seeing if it survives the shot?

▲

jbay808 a day ago | parent | next [-]

You can fire the shot and then patch the hole at the same time, proposing solutions to the same problem you pointed out, rather than just shooting and letting one person handle defense from every attack.

▲

majormajor a day ago | parent | prev [-]

By proceeding with things that will gather more data—such as prototyping, or further independent research—vs spinning indefinitely on "hypothetical" discussion-only shots.

How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"?

	▲	Jensson 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> How do you know if it survives the shot without that, if it's just person A saying "I don't think Python perf will be an issue" and person B saying "I think it will"? That is the point, knowing that it is a point we want to test is valuable. If person B there didn't say he thought it would be an issue you probably wouldn't have tested it, it was valuable for him to say that.