90% of Everything Is Crap
matt-rickard.com
matt-rickard.com
The only thing in common is that they both use percentages in their articulation.
The hard part is to be the kind of person who can identify the 10% thing. It's even harder to be the kind of person who can offer the 10% thing.
In this way, mistake identifiers are low grade contributors.
> Suppose a 'bogus' test kit is designed to always give a positive reading. When used on diseased patients, all patients test positive, giving the test 100% sensitivity. However, sensitivity does not take into account false positives. The bogus test also returns positive on all healthy patients, giving it a false positive rate of 100%, rendering it useless for detecting or "ruling in" the disease.
Corollary: the only thing worse than a naysayer is a fanboy.
Therefore, to me, fanboys are better. I quickly know I shouldn’t pay attention.
2) moving the crap line from 90% to 89% is a 10% increase is the supply of non-crap.
3) if you want more non-crap in your life, you need to increase your cross sectional area with your target universe and regress to the mean.
1/10 being non-crap is pretty good, go with it.
The most important part of building something that isn't crap is being able to recognize the crap in what you are considering for use. Then deciding if you can contain the crap, or find a less crappy alternative.
To implement it in a computer, you likely rely on an operating system to run on, layers of userspace libraries, layers of firmware, many independent hardware components. An electrical supply.
Eg build systems without autotools, cmake or even more horrible bloatware (meson, bazel, conan, scons, nix, ...).
That's why e.g people ship header-only libs. That's why suckless exists. XML configs, YAML configs, SOAP, Java, ... oh my.
Am I just supposed to build everything I own myself from scratch? I have a full-time job. I was also coming off three spine surgeries in the span of 16 months when I moved in and wasn't exactly in shape to build my own house.
A good craftsman should be able to tell you how well a house is constructed before purchase. Not that I'm saying that would have been easy to fit into your schedule.
You have the option to purchase beautifully created hand crafted doors but then you’d probably complain about the prices being unreasonable. That’s always been the trade off hasn’t it.
This isn't a matter of commodity parts. As far as we can tell, the builder (who has been late on upwards of 80% of HOA payments, by the way) is simply a grifter who pissed off all the contractors working for him to the point they either did shit work on purpose, or just refused to finish and he brought in some random unqualified handyman to get as much as he could past overworked, too old, don't give a shit city inspectors.
And yeah, each individual homeowner could be smarter and know what to look for to find these signs when buying a house. Yet very few of us do. I don't have that kind of expertise on everything I might ever have to purchase, and again, was taking 30 mg of oxycodone a day for two years while still trying to work.
I'd be glad to believe this is some isolated incident, except ever since moving here, every contractor I've ever had out to fix anything has told me they keeping seeing this kind of fly-by-night, has no clue what they're doing builder popping up and hiring lowest bid subs and then running out of money to actually pay them, constantly seeing work stop and people walking off the job, to the point that the only people willing to do urban work are largely unqualified, low grade tradesmen. It's endemic to the industry right now, seemingly a result of so much free money floating out there that anyone with a hundred grand in capital and no experience doing anything remotely related is now qualified to buy a bunch of land and become a homebuilder.
I wouldn't complain at all that a well built home is unreasonably priced. The problem is, whether I'm willing or not, I don't have the means to buy a two million dollar home.
Well I guess creating a gajillion prototypes is actually worth something -- learning what works and what doesn't allowing you to create a proper base for what actually sees the light of day.
And an author as well. From his Wikipedia bio: “He wrote approximately 400 reviews and more than 120 short stories, 11 novels and several Star Trek scripts.”
Hence his 90% crap rule comes from a different mouth than just from a critic.
If I don't have the tools to curate the swaths of metadata, then results will only ever be mostly correct.