I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
The paragraph above is similar to the one that comes before it. Especially this part:
They’re similar cuz both don’t involve doing a good postmortem. One postmortem is done superficially and the other one seems to not even happen. One party tries to fix the error quickly and the other tries to do a quick understanding of the error. Both want to move on without much effort to understand the problem.
Here’s the first sentence of the top quote:
I think I for sure do this kind of fix. I think update means to fix a problem. Idk what’s being updated. I think if you want to move on without much investigation then you’ll want to fix the error quickly and move on. The way you’re doing is something is flawed and you just update it to do your goal well.
I think I’m as eager as described in the quote cuz I like just fixing the error quickly so I can move on to do a goal. Like, it seems enticing to fix everything you notice cuz then you can probably do the goal afterwards. What if you’re doing something hard? I don’t think just updating like that will help.
I didn’t think that making an error warranted an investigation or discussion of the error. I kind of did but I thought if it was something that could get a quick manageable fix, then just do that and learn about it another time. A part of me thinks tho that a lot of the kinds of errors I make are the same. What’s the fixing for if you’re going to keep making the same errors later?
It’d be nice to learn how to do a substantial investigation or discuss an error. What’s substantial mean? You could learn about your error and what’s the underlying cause. That way you can have something to compare to when you just quickly fix the errors.