Indeed. There's still a lot to be corrected, and the system as a whole wasn't perfect to begin with. But it's also last bit, which has been corrected, is the context of the submission. It's of course important to step back and assess the system as a whole: it's also important to recognize when smaller parts are working, if nothing else to remind ourselves that the system as a whole is worth saving.
Every system has flaws. That doesn't mean all systems are meaningless. It's easy to point out the flaws in a system; fixing them or proposing a new system with fewer flaws is much, much harder.
I'm just saying, we do have a system in place to make corrections. Because they have not been doing it, doesn't mean we can toss it all out and start over.
that's an odd interpretation. this seems less like a system doing what it's supposed to do and correcting itself and more like an instance of that system failing to do what it's supposed to do and correcting itself.
Certainly - that doesn't mean that we can't have a system that's a bit better than we currently have, though. It just means there's not a perfect system.
Except there have been too many mistakes and missteps for a while now, it's three stars at best. I can respect a system that does what I need it to do in one opinionated way, but when that system doesn't do what I need or does too many things poorly, why would I stay? If I need to fix the system anyway, I'll use one that makes it easiest.
That's a fair point, and I agree there is value in just identifying flaws. The flip side though is that it's easy to find flaws in any system since there's a large surface area - and the author is not just pointing out flaws, but saying the system is wrong. At the very least, I'd argue that we should hold people to at least trying to quantify the flaws they see in the system, especially when making such strong claims about it. Otherwise, how do we affect change?
Yeah, I figured someone would respond that way. I have a feeling that the more process that lies around making such fixes...the more likely the system is likely to be under performing (and or broken) long term.
I believe they're an acknowledgement that the system cannot be perfect and some small amount of manual tinkering will always be needed for it to always do what seems right.
reply