Comment by windowshopping
2 years ago
But nobody said they wouldn't use it. You said that. You came up with this idea and then demanded other people defend it.
I don't know why "critiquing the tool" is being equated to "refusing to use the tool."
I don't like calling something a strawman, because I think it's an overused argument, but...I mean...
I didn't come up with it nor ask anyone to defend it. I asked a different question about usefulness, and about what it means to him for something to be "broken".
My point is that the attempt to critique it was a failure. It provided no critique.
It was incomplete at the very least -- it assigned it the label of broken, but didn't explain the implications of that. It didn't define at what level of failure it would need to be to valuable.
Additionally, I didn't indicate whether or not he would refuse to use it -- specifically because I didn't know, because he didn't say.
We all use broken tools built on a fragile foundation of imperfect precision.