Hacker News Reader

Comment by hansvm | Hacker News Reader

In this case, a fence plus a bit of luck. It's unlikely they knew at installation that iron was more suitable than a more rigid steel due to second-order effects.

View on HN

The longevity of the original design alone argues for not messing with it, whether or not the original builders knew what they were doing.

Yeah, it's a good example of lindy

yah but chesty's fence is about what it does not the reasoning behind it being made. if someone makes a fence to keep out ghosts and it keeps out wolves instead, the second part is what you need to figure out before you tear it down.

> if someone makes a fence to keep out ghosts and it keeps out wolves instead, the second part is what you need to figure out before you tear it down.

The problem is how long do you keep researching? What if your diligent research eventually discovers the wolf effect, but that whole time the fence was also a massive danger because it provided no means of fast egress in the event of a fire?

Then you tear it down? It's about how you shouldn't assume something is pointless because you don't immediately see the purpose, not an edict for open-ended conservatism. I was pointing out that "the original intent" and "the current purpose" aren't necessary the same, but you're still stuck alone with your own judgement for the rest.

My point is that the proposal that the default should always be to leave things the way they are (which is the whole point of the Chesterton’s fence principle) is not a good general principle, because if you currently have very little understanding of the situation, “the way things currently are” could just as easily be extremely dangerous.

then argue with chesteron about it lol not me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com