News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff by differentView on Tuesday October 28, 2014 @08:34PM (#8524730)
>if you have no bad outcomes, you may be taking a suboptimal amount of risk

That is not the same as what blhack wrote, "If you're failing, you're doing something right."

you: zero failures = doing something wrong

blhack: any failure = doing something right

blhack's statement is clearly ridiculous.

Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff by dang on Tuesday October 28, 2014 @09:01PM (#8524852)
This is an example of how the signal/noise ratio on HN can be improved by the Principle of Charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity.

blhack's comment was ambiguous. Under some interpretations it is ridiculous, but under others it is sensible. By interpreting charitably, we can avoid a fair bit of two of the worst things on HN: abrasiveness and nitpicking.

(Edit: and protracted disputes. So, three of the worst things on HN.)

Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff by blhack on Tuesday October 28, 2014 @08:50PM (#8524805)
Your understanding of what I said is also clearly ridiculous.

In context, what I am saying is pretty obviously meant to be taken as:

Failure is part of taking risk. Risk is part of doing things that are difficult. Doing things that are difficult is part of progress. Progress is something that I consider "right".

And then put further into context, with regards to spectacular failures like the one today: Don't beat yourself up [engineers who worked on orbital] because the very difficult thing that you were doing failed. That is what makes that very difficult thing noteworthy.