I traced the source for the “Uncle Balance in a nutshell” story, and found that it was told in relation to trade-off.
- There is no causal relationship between the existence of trade-offs and the need for balance in the first place.
- Implicitly assumes that the maximum of the utility function is not at both ends
Summary of “The Point is Uncle Balance” - Togetter
@katzchang: I ridicule people who find a trade-off structure in anything and are content with the conclusion that “the point is balance” and call it “In short, In short,. Uncle Balance. @katzchang: there is no trade-off structure in the world to speak of, so gathering information often leads to natural conclusions.
-
@mizchi: @katzchang my natural conclusion is more natural
-
@katzchang: @mizchi If we have a confrontation, just organize the information and we’re usually good to go!
-
@nagise: without a value weighting presentation, sometimes all you can say is “the bottom line is balance”. I could be more specific if you could tell me what you value and what kind of balance you’re looking for.
@selfcomestomine: the point is, Uncle Balance knows how to take risks and not say “which is more important”, though, Often not very helpful. https://t.co/3VucjGV69f
@satetsu888: It’s not good to compromise in the right place by saying that the point is balance, but there are many things that we have no choice but to go for it at this point, no matter how much information we gather. I think the key is balance…
magnoliak🍧 @magnolia_k_ I always say it’s either lack of authority or lack of information that bothers me.
@shinpei0213: The bottom line is that, with regard to Uncle Balance, it is not bad and necessary to find the trade-off structure and say “we have to balance somewhere”, but it is not good and necessary to stop there. But it’s not good to stop there, and it’s not good to say “in this case, we can’t move this part, so let’s take this part” or in the case of a generalized story, “in this case, it’s better to focus on this part, and in that case, it’s better to focus on that part”. I am of the opinion that this information is valuable. I think it’s always a trade-off to talk about design, so when I talk about patterns, I have to say “if you want to solve this kind of problem” and “if you want to solve this kind of problem” and “if you dare” to take on the complexity of splitting the pattern to solve any problem.
@songmu: there’s a trap of finding tradeoffs where there aren’t tradeoffs and assuming that’s where you’re going, etc.
-
@ffu_: if you guys are serious, we can do it. The fakers are cutting corners on what the tradeoffs are.
-
@songmu: This is cool because Mr. Fujimura says it, and “Programmers should not say No” is also cool because Mr. Iwata says it, rather than because others It’s cool because Mr. Fujimura says it, and it’s cool because Mr. Iwata says it. I thought that when I read “Mr. Iwata.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/要はバランス using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.