Comment by rkeene2

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.