You can understand why, light-hearted fun is not necessary so its risk/reward is strictly negative. Still makes me a bit nostalgic for a time in computing that I never experienced, like the old usenet group archives (I was alive and using computers in some capacity at that time, just not working in the industry).
During my stint in Big Tech, I would often times reflect how much of what I was seeing was an instance of:
> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.
I may start to add this to my e-mail signature, too.
Far too many people believe that if you have something that's not two of these that the third follows, specifically if you have Not-Fast and Not-Cheap it follows it must therefore be Good. It's quite possible to be Bad, Slow, Expensive. Indeed it's often likely to be that.
There's also a belief that you can't have three of
# Good enough, Fast enough, Cheap enough: Pick any two (you can't have all three).
With more time and more money you can usually make things better, but you can also make things worse. The question in business is does it meet the need. Does doubling the budget also double the business value.
Fundamentally I dislike this absolute, and indeed the next claim
> It is more complicated than you think.
Is bang on
You cannot act on information you do not have.