Ohohoho. I'd say this is actually an example of a third thing, where it turns out that you didn't even disagree, except in choice of words.

▲

necovek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Does not your entire comment rely on a very particular ("original") definition of the word compromise — so, uhm, on "choice of words"?

▲

card_zero an hour ago | parent [-]

You're saying that a definition of compromise as "concessions on both sides" is strange and original, really? Did you understand the word compromise to mean a process to which creativity is crucial, and not concessions? I'd be very surprised (and pleased) if that was how you understood the word already. It's not how it's portrayed in the article.

	▲	necovek an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I would say that creativity is crucial to a good, working compromise. You do not need much creativity for a bad one (it sounds like you are focusing on that type of compromise). I am not saying that the "original" definition of "concessions on both sides" is strange at all though — merely that this was the original (first) meaning of the word, but that it is today used for both indicating a successful idea that meets multiple goals when they are re-evaluated by their spirit, and a set of concessions that meet some but not all of the original goals or their spirit.