h a l f b a k e r yMagical moments of mediocrity.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Imagine if some great idea stems out of a stupid one. Could
that happen? In my University group on Philology I read
about
a dictionary of some ancient language by someone that got it
all wrong, then received thousands of remarks, and
continuously improved the next editions until finally today
their dictionary is considered the number one in that field.
Granted, when an idea is a WIBNI, seems totally undoable or
is
just plain bad science (like many of mine have been, I think I
learned a lot here with time) we should spell out the
problems.
But there are just half baked ideas, that weren't thought
through, and have small flaws. The idea deserves my
fishbone,
but at the same time could use a word of encouragement to
be
improved. Maybe I could even think about it and give a
suggestion. Perhaps the best would be to say that I see a
problem, describe it, and suggest an improvement.
I have no idea how this can be done. Maybe we just need a
reminder that a fishbone today could become many
croissonts
spelled correctly some day.
Your thoughts please?
Cunningham's Law
https://meta.m.wiki.../Cunningham%27s_Law
[xaviergisz, Aug 12 2021]
[link]
|
| |
Not sure why, I pressed on two fries shy link on some other
idea and saw that he writes this: |
|
| |
Perhaps it is better in this present world of ours that a
revolutionary idea or invention instead of being helped and
patted, be hampered and ill-treated in its adolescence —
by want of means, by selfish interest, pedantry, stupidity
and ignorance; that it be attacked and stifled; that it pass
through bitter trials and tribulations, through the heartless
strife of commercial existence. So do we get our light. So
all that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned,
combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more
powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle. |
|
| |
//Imagine if some great idea stems out of a stupid one// You're fighting against the tide here. Much more likely for a stupid idea to stem out of a great one. |
|
| |
But to be serious for a few seconds, isn't that the whole point of the halfbakery? Stupid ideas are posted, are mocked, are developed into puns, and sometimes we get wee insights into what aspects of the idea are stupider. Its related to perpetual-motion-itis, where the goal is to work out exactly why the machine will fail to operate. That (stupid, ultimately frustrating) troubleshooting is the most amazing learning process. |
|
| |
//Imagine if some great idea stems out of a stupid one.// -
This happens a lot already - I've seen many ideas here
inspired by, and improving on, other ideas |
|
| |
This is described as an iterative process and is in common use by most designers. |
|
| |
I think this is exactly what we do here. But not all
ideas can be fixed or made better, that’s why we
have Fishbones. |
|
| |
I mean, this is also part of the "failed experiments should be
published" argument. Looking at how and why something
didn't work is often beneficial to finding a new way to look
at it, or inspiring a solution to some other problem. |
|
| |
Failed experiments should be remembered and
dissected, lest to repeat same mistakes.
*encouraging a flawed idea* is a defeating
sentence as it already states the idea is
flawed.Maybe this is just a problem with words. |
|
| |
I would like to be more like [Bliss]: generous and considerate. It would encourage a lot of better behavior compared to my present strategy of straight talk and bitterness. I would like to be, but I'm not. Maybe if I hadn't failed at all the everything I would have found some sweetness in life, and have something sweet to pass on. |
|
| |
Bitterness is a daily choice that people choose by
default. Changing the default setting isn't as hard as
it seems. |
|
| |
Part of improving flawed ideas is responding to
people's questions and comments. Someone noted
recently that the author rarely does this. |
|
| |