> Psychologists call this black or white thinking

The same can be told for your thinking. You (and several other posters) lumped several arguments into the same Nirvana fallacy [1]:

1. It's not 100% effective

2. It's only 50% effective

3. It is not even 10% effective

These are very different from each other. The first one may actually mean what you described (either something works perfectly or it's useless) but the others must be discussed separately.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

▲

kelseyfrog 2 hours ago | parent [-]

ok, then what's the minimum efficacy such that you'll consider it viable?

▲

selcuka an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Again, it's not a black or white issue. There is no universal constant threshold where it suddenly becomes viable. If you ask my personal opinion, I would say:

- If it's not even 10% effective, don't waste any resources. Replace it with another method.

- If it's 10% - 50% effective, improve it.

- If it's >50% effective, it's probably fine, leave it.

My point it that there can be many other shades of grey here. It's not fair to lump all opponents of the current implementation into the same basket.

	▲	kelseyfrog 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, then maybe what I'm saying applies to Aeolun and not you. It looks like you decided to self-insert into a critique that doesn't involve you and then decide that means the critique is wrong.

▲

cindyllm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]