From 3e65ec890f0bc9e9bec8ffd64e69ccf87ed6054e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: user Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 08:15:32 -0800 Subject: clang fix --- research/choice.txt | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) (limited to 'research/choice.txt') diff --git a/research/choice.txt b/research/choice.txt index 2a09df9..aa6b2d7 100644 --- a/research/choice.txt +++ b/research/choice.txt @@ -11,6 +11,40 @@ with personal judgement-making. when coding we worry about maintainability, difficulty, speed, effectiveness. a general decision-making process may multiply value/importance by effectiveness and pick the greatest. +note: choicemaking involves learning. + we're going to produce information after making a choice + to inform future choices + useful metrics: + how-long-took + success log surrounding + event log surrounding + choices never followed by immediate success could + be unwise to consider first in an emergency. + useful goal attributes: + time available, time preference + importance + experience + decider that selected this goal + expected attributes for meeting it + ease + time + space + (look like needs) + acceptable attributes for meeting it + seems valuable to reconsider the behavior if the + attributes for meeting it leave what is acceptable + hrm .. example is in different area. + choice has a lot to do with expectations. + the metrics seem like they could relate a lot + to future state +this is very similar to people working together. learning +appears to be a dialogue of reasons. it is helpful to consider a +decider a person who can be asked or updated things. + needs appear labels for resources discovered as + helpful metrics in reaching goals. + propose we talk about people / judgement processes, and + needs, rather than reasons. + # worry: this research may not close. it could inhibit associated things. # reason to continue is because it may inform other decisions. # do you know it won't close? any concept around how much? -- cgit v1.2.3