Re:Attorneys say Elizabeth Holmes isn’t paying them
by hliyan on Saturday October 05, 2019 @05:17AM
(#21164558)
Nothing inherently. Except that most great discoveries/inventions were made by people who were convinced about the fundamental validity of their idea and persevered over many iterations (rather than pivoting). Consider how many years the incandescent light bulb would have been delayed had Edison (or Swan or whoever you want to credit) had failed fast with the filaments. To me, fail-fast is a very VC-centric philosophy. It's perfectly valid if your end goal is return on investment. But if your goal is to "build something", perseverance is generally a better strategy.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Attorneys say Elizabeth Holmes isn’t paying them
by np_tedious on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @07:52PM
(#21198552)
> Consider how many years the incandescent light bulb would have been delayed had Edison (or Swan or whoever you want to credit) had failed fast with the filaments.
But he did try a lot of different filament materials. It would've been really dumb to think he was going to somehow get cotton or whatever wrong material correct if he just stuck with it. Instead he had procedures and a framework to try a lot of candidates and iterate quickly.
I get this argument might not be exactly fair because I can twist it to nearly anything. But that's how maxims like "fail fast" or "haste makes waste" or "a stitch in time..." works. They still have value
Re:Attorneys say Elizabeth Holmes isn’t paying them
by perl4ever on Sunday October 06, 2019 @05:44PM
(#21175382)
If your goal as a society or whatever is to "build something" having many members who persevere is better. But on an individual basis, it usually isn't, because you'll probably fail. There's a tension between individual rationality and group rationality.