Jan Wildeboer 😷
Both-sideing in the media started in the tech world, where since 30 years every time you say "I use $SOFTWARE and here's how and why", it immediately attracts the "yes, but" crowd, promoting their supposed alternatives, blaming you for being on the wrong side of history, making sure that no person new to the field can ever decide what to do and use next. I call it Choice Paralysis. #SarcasmButOnlyHalf
Jörn Franke@jwildeboer I think this is the result of "solutionism" in many enterprises. Just come up with new solution - do not think about what you need now and what you need in the future. Do not think about what problems you solve. This creates a huge technical debt which brings a lot of work for IT, but not much for users or for the greater good.
@jornfranke And I would go the next step and claim that this "solutionism" is mostly ego-boosting, self aggrandising behaviour. The opposite of consensus-finding, what we should really focus on. But I won't give up hoping that we can remove ego from the equation and focus on Good Enough™ that actually solves problems and lets us move on instead of all that wasteful infighting :)
Cosmo
Shipping a button in 2026…
Mauricio Teixeira🐧
Benjamin Braatz@jwildeboer Annoying people who have chosen differently is bad, yes.
But saying “I use $OTHER_SOFTWARE and here's how and why” without mentioning the other person is completely legitimate and can *also* lead to choice paralysis. Honest and in-depth comparisons might be more helpful for persons new to the field than fanboying only one of the possibilities.
But, in the end, what helps against choice paralysis is learning to force yourself to choose in a world without perfect choices.
@HeptaSean In my opinion, not every decision has to be the result of a full-blown comparison and analysis that I must share with others. A lot of decisions I make are just that. Decisions, made in the moment. The simple solution that works Good Enough™. So that I can move on to solve the *real* issue :)