Having thought about the above more, I think “accuracy isn’t a top priority” is a better theory than the one expressed here, but if I don’t publish this now it will probably be months.
I like how this admission supports the “accuracy isn’t a top priority” theory.
I feel a little defensive here, because I think the acknowledgement and subsequent actions were more accurate and information preserving than any others I can think of. I didn’t want to rewrite it, I didn’t want to quickly hack useful chunks out, I didn’t want to pretend I thought things I didn’t, I actually did hold these views once.
If you have suggestions for a better course of action, I’m open.
I mean this as agreement with the “accuracy isn’t a top priority” theory, plus an amused comment about how the aside embodies that theory by acknowledging the existence of a more accurate theory which does not get prioritized.
I like how this admission supports the “accuracy isn’t a top priority” theory.
Do you mean this as a rebuke?
I feel a little defensive here, because I think the acknowledgement and subsequent actions were more accurate and information preserving than any others I can think of. I didn’t want to rewrite it, I didn’t want to quickly hack useful chunks out, I didn’t want to pretend I thought things I didn’t, I actually did hold these views once.
If you have suggestions for a better course of action, I’m open.
I mean this as agreement with the “accuracy isn’t a top priority” theory, plus an amused comment about how the aside embodies that theory by acknowledging the existence of a more accurate theory which does not get prioritized.
Sure, but again to discuss what really happened, it wasn’t that it wasn’t prioritised, it was that I didn’t realise it until late into the process.
That isn’t prioritisation, in my view, that’s halfassing. And I endorse having done so.