Yet, The Machine has good points.
>For someone whose entire career is built on "if it broke, I can find out why," this is deeply unsettling. Not in a dramatic way. In a slow, grinding, background-anxiety way. You can never fully trust the output. You can never fully relax. Every interaction requires vigilance.
> you are collaborating with a probabilistic system, and your brain is wired for deterministic ones. That mismatch is a constant, low-grade source of stress.
Back when I bought my first computer, it was a crappy machine that crashed all the time. (Peak of the fake capacitors plague in 2006). That made me doubt and second guess everything that is usually taken for granted in hardware and software (Like simply booting up). That mindset proved useful latter in my career.
I’m not saying anything new. Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas have written about it in a way better way. I find it to still hold very relevant guidelines.
https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/lieber/courses/csg1...
>Think! About Your Work
>Critically Analyze What You Read and Hear
>Electromagnetic pickups—(...)—fixed the loudness problem. But they left a new one: the envelope
Was it really a problem to be solved? Good tube amplifiers already existed back then. Clean guiar tone was not something frowned upon.
>Hendrix’s mission was (...)
>His solution was (...)
I don't think Hendrix was on a 'mission' to solve engineering puzzles at all. He was just experimenting, as an artist.