The saying means that when creating something new for profit, don't worry too much about trying to figure out all the details beforehand and figure it out as you go. This will inevitably cause things to break, but being able to quickly fix that when it happens is the same skills needed to create new features as you go.

The saying does not work with large and complex established systems where breaking things wreak havoc.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It also feels like they chase the “break things” part as if not breaking stuff is a bad thing, and like we should be proud of them for releasing broken and poorly tested updates.

Move fast, break things, fix the broken things, push update/product whatever. They keep forgetting the third step.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Like the startups that 'disrupt' the established system by ignoring laws and breaking the parts that worked and selling it like an improvement.

'Ride sharing' (unregulated cabs) was only cheaper because of investor funding allowing them to undercut on pricing, abusing the concept of contract workers, and the companies ignoring laws. That isn't 'disruptive' by being innovative, that is cheating the system.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

And that’s exactly it. Capitalism rewards having money and how you get it isn’t important. It doesn’t breed technological innovation but it sure as shit pumps out new, fun ways to spew propoganda and avoid laws! And oh boy is paying employees well not even close to a metric by which to measure a successful company.

It’s the least people clever in the room having the volume to make sure that no one smarter than them can speak and then claiming they’re geniuses when only their idea gets through.

[–] JohnSmith@feddit.uk 7 points 4 months ago

I think there is another aspect that is important: limit the blast radius. Shit inevitably happens when you create something new and complex, and when it does, you’d rather minimise the impact where possible.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

What, you mean I can't just read rich guy memoirs and blindly apply the platitude under each chapter heading? /s

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It works fine for anyone with the foresight to be born into an ultra wealthy family.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Or at least a sorta-wealthy family, and the further "foresight" to be in the exact right place at the right time.

That's the background of most of the Western ultra-rich, just as a consequence of there being vastly more sorta-wealthy families than already ultra-rich ones. Some of them are bound to stumble into situations that add a digit or two to their net worth. For an example, Elon Musk is notable for being tangentially involved in a huge success like three times, despite being a well-known moron.

My favourite introduction to the mathematical modeling of how inequality happens.

[–] conquer4@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

And more likely to overall fail. https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/05/agile_failure_rates/