I wrote this to find out what to reply to. Like, what about the quote to reply to.
What is the goal for this reply? The goal is to respond to the reply. Why? To learn about it. What do I want to learn from it? Without looking at it, I want to learn about postmortems more like how to do them or what they’re about. I want to know if there’s a good detail to learn about so I can do them better. What do I want to learn about the quote? I wanna know what it means to generally view mistakes, what “usually” means in the quote, what “changes” mean, and to learn about the standard view of individual mistakes.
I think the first part of the sentence is saying that you should usually see mistakes as a fairly big deal. I think that’s using one definition of “generally”. Like, most times you should think that a mistake is a fairly big deal. I think you should think that there’s stuff to investigate. Don’t just brush it aside as a random mistake with no cause. Learn about the mistake more.
There’s another definition in Merriam Webster that says in regard to the overall picture. If that definition was the one used in the quote, then I think you should treat errors you run into as a fairly big deal. You may find some exceptions that don’t need to be treated like a big deal, but the outlook is still useful. Idk…how would you know there isn’t an underlying cause? Did you investigate? What was your conclusion? I think it’s like a rule of thumb to treat mistakes as a fairly big deal. Also, what does fairly big deal mean? I think like it’s not an emergency, but it’s still a priority. Like, it’s a big deal cuz it’s causing so many of your mistakes. It’s making you fail at your goals.
I think this part describes “fairly big deal”:
I think this is why they’re a big deal. They usually require substantial introspection and changes to fix. If you need to do that stuff to fix your mistakes then that makes sense why they’re like a big deal. They require an organized effort to learn about them. If you just ignore them then the mistakes are going to keep happening. If you don’t do the investigation then you won’t know much about the issue to fix them.
You could see mistakes in this way:
You can see them as superficial, individual, small issues. What kinds of issues are those? What’s a superficial issue? Like, there’s not much going on than meets the eye. Like, you don’t need more understanding to get it. What is an individual issue? I think that it’s not connected to another thing. Like, the mistake is an isolated thing. If the issue is small then then I think it doesn’t require much work to understand or you think there’s not many parts to it.
You could see those issues aren’t part of patterns. I think that has to do with patterns of errors…I don’t know. I think it’s an idea or model that explains your errors. Like, cuz you believe that electronics aren’t powered by electricity you’ll have a pattern of errors there. Idk about this.
I know patterns repeat but not why. Patterns sound like an ongoing thing that errors would fit into. Like, patterns say something is going to happen cuz x, y, and z, and the errors would fit that pattern. Cuz you don’t know about the pattern then you won’t understand how to fix them.