upvote
This works if there's no cost of failure in the meantime.

If we're putting humans into rockets into space, I'd like to think we adopt a balanced approach.

reply
No. This works if you are able to tell a work of fiction and don't have to provide evidence.

And it works because we all know that repetition and practice are, in fact, important. So it feels believable that having people just repeat something over and over is the answer.

Similarly, people can be swayed by the master coming in and producing a single artifact that blows away everyone. You see this archetype story as often as the student that learns by just repeating a motion over and over. (Indeed.... this is literally the Karate Kid plot...)

The truth is far more mundane. Yes, you have to repeat things. But also yes, you have to give thought to what you are doing. This is why actual art classes aren't just "lets build things", but also "lets learn how to critique things that you build."

reply
Isn't this a non-sequitur though? Artemis presumably doesn't have to actually load up humans on the rockets to flight test them.
reply
It works perfectly well when you’ve got deep pockets and unmanned test vehicles though.
reply
Those deep pockets are funded by the same pot we all feed from.
reply
deleted
reply
Now tell the fake story about the moneys and the ladder too.
reply
The actual real world result is the opposite. When you score on quantity you get James Patterson, not F Scott Fitzgerald.
reply
And F Scott Fitzgerald died in poverty essentially unknown, while James Patterson is worth over $800 million.
reply