Thanks. This might be the most compelling argument I've heard so far, that any thought on the topic simply distracts from building something people want.
I disagree, respectfully of course. Rather than "build it", I think the culture here is "fail fast". What better way to fail fast than to figure out that you should not waste your time building something because no one cares/needs it?
While I generally agree with your sentiment about building without external money (ie, bootstrapping), you may come across with your points better if you were a little more civilized and decent about it.
The alternative isn’t always “people just need to be better at their job”. Sometimes the alternative is that the thing you like to use never gets built at all because the cost of building it “right” would be prohibitively expensive. It’s always a balance.
I view your analogy completely different.
There is a set of problems that require excellence from the start. No one will go to your hotel in Antarctica if it’s built like a shack house and they don’t feel safe there!
If you can’t achieve that kind of quality don’t even bother trying to build it.
100% agreed there. I'm just thinking, you generally get more value out of building for the world you live in than out of building for the world you wish you lived in.
So much of what this guy rambles about is so moot to anyone who's ever actually worked in the building industry.
Why is he even qualified to have this opinion?
The premise that buildings "nowadays" are universally cheap and inferior is stupid:
There have always been shitty buildings that don't last, because poor people also need homes.
Cheap buildings today are significantly better protection against the elements than shacks from the "good old days".
I agree with the spirit of the articles, so I guess I don't care (Yes, we should encourage people to spend more money in the building industry! Yes, hire a local artisan to make something!), but I think an economic argument is more compelling than an emotional one.
reply