
You Can't Get Different Results Doing The Same Thing - peter123
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/12/you-cant-get-di.html
======
jfornear
You know how we can get different results? By letting these inefficient
companies fail.

Bankruptcy is the better long-term solution to the problem. These workers
won't be unemployed for long. Responsible managers, who have been making the
right decisions, should get the opportunity to buy up these assets and
restructure a more efficient business.

I agree with FW's take, but I don't like government intervention in private
enterprise. When the government decides to bail a company out, which they
shouldn't do in the first place, they sure as hell shouldn't have any say on
how that money is spent.

~~~
dhimes
I disagree. If we're giving them money, we can put constraints on it. In fact,
we have a _duty_ to see if constraints are needed. Giving the company money
and not ensuring it gets where it needs to go is gross negligence. I could buy
this argument, however: if we need to put constraints on it, then that's a
business that needs to fail.

~~~
jfornear
_if we need to put constraints on it, then that's a business that needs to
fail._

Exactly! That's kind of what I was meaning to say... :)

------
ruby_roo
Sure I can!

    
    
      >> Kernel.rand 
      => 0.639396625161958
      >> Kernel.rand 
      => 0.492774449558796
      >> Kernel.rand 
      => 0.510863071464651
    

Your results may vary.

~~~
Ezra
Those aren't the same thing. f(a) != f(b) != f(c) is unsurpising.

Just because you don't personally, and explicitly define the inputs of the
algorithm does not mean that they are none, or that they are static.

Of course, this also means that you can never do the "same thing" twice,
because space and time are nice like that.

I think a more appropriate headline/analogy/Simpsons reference would be, "dig
up, stupid".

Or perhaps even better, "the business of failure has failed: we need to make
it work again!"

~~~
helveticaman
_Or perhaps even better, "the business of failure has failed: we need to make
it work again!"_

Won't comment on the rest, but this is fabulous.

------
dhimes
Although I agree with the point of his post, it seems like he should figure
out whether or the bridge loan 21 years ago worked before adopting this
mantra. Maybe forcing changes on average is _worse_? Doubtful, but maybe.
Unless you keep track you won't know.

------
alyx
I haven't read the article and am commenting on strictly the title but yes,
yes you CAN get different results doing the same thing!

~~~
kalid
Agreed -- sometimes the surrounding environment changes.

~~~
eru
And you may doing something involving randomness or chaos anyway.

