Hacker News Reader

Comment by wnoise | Hacker News Reader

I never claimed it was. But all other things being equal, it's better to be wrong less often, to make fewer mistakes. And when you do make mistakes, it's better to gracefully correct. But in any given case, it really is better to not make the mistake at all.

View on HN

Of course it's better to be perfect than not. You've stated a tautology.

A tautology means it's always true. That a curious criterion to use as a criticism. All statements are either tautologies, or sometimes false (or are not meant to have truth values, of course).

It is what should be an obvious tautology. Criticizing it for its obviousness makes sense -- if it were that obvious it would add nothing to the discussion. Yet for some reason I did feel the need to remind people of this.

Acknowledging that one was wrong when at last forced to by circumstances is not a particular trait of great leaders. It is a bare minimum. Acknowledging and correcting as circumstances suggest better options, but before circumstances thus force one is a sign of great leadership. Having backup plans ready in case your first choice doesn't work out is another. (It's true that many leaders do none of these. Leaders that do only the first are better than leaders that do none. But it's still not a sign of great leadership.)

> Criticizing it for its obviousness makes sense

That was my intention. I was perhaps unclear.

That depends entirely on the cost of a mistake. If the cost of mistake is low, it's better to make a lots of decisions quickly than it is to try to get each decision correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com