Spatial data makes a lot of the 1 dimensional thinking more and more of a 20th century relic and even less of an opinion. "Those variables are unique to them" is an easy way to rationlize.
The culture divide make so many variables moot/invalid, since lifestyle, language and customs may not even associate with any of the variables (one-way/two-way doors for example).
As an individual, its easy to simplify. As someone trying to explain something, its easy to oversimplify, missing any/all of the details, experience and even the accumulated wisdom in basing the decision(s).
Reversible/irreversible is not usually a carrot on a stick. Even with health, detrimental/beneficial usually has more merit than any cost weighted variables (you can never buy your health back).
2=1+1 has worked just fine in traditional science for centuries. The (2) is usually unique though.
All that to say.... This article did nothing for me :)
I'm not sure if you really understood anything about what the article is actually trying to say and instead you got caught up on the types of examples it uses to help illustrate the framework for making decisions. Could you clarify why exactly the article did nothing for you?
"Make reversible decisions as soon as possible and make irreversible decisions as late as possible."
The summary sounded like a rash judgement.
Is A/B/C testing reversible, irreversable or a tool for clarity in goal making decisions? The article appeared to be 1 dimensional.
I was fortunate enough to have a website that crested into the top 800,000 websites years ago (a solo endeavor)... And backups made every decision reversible, if that was even a thing. I did have to commit to goals though and not once was anything irreversable.
The 1st world still bases decisions on the best data available.
The culture divide make so many variables moot/invalid, since lifestyle, language and customs may not even associate with any of the variables (one-way/two-way doors for example).
As an individual, its easy to simplify. As someone trying to explain something, its easy to oversimplify, missing any/all of the details, experience and even the accumulated wisdom in basing the decision(s).
Reversible/irreversible is not usually a carrot on a stick. Even with health, detrimental/beneficial usually has more merit than any cost weighted variables (you can never buy your health back).
2=1+1 has worked just fine in traditional science for centuries. The (2) is usually unique though.
All that to say.... This article did nothing for me :)