unknowns

Even when you can't ask the questions I like to turn all the unknown unknowns into known unknowns.

You don't just have known-unknowns, you have unknown-unknowns.

There are just so many additional unknowns when you're dealing with potential co-founders that you have no history with.

There are a bunch of if's and unknowns involved, but it could be maybe possible to detect a Dyson sphere.

The wins from basic research come from the unknown unknowns, and as such can be disruptive like an outside-context-problem [0].

Waterfall style development (non-iterative) is appropriate for well defined problems, where there are few unknowns.

When you have worked extensively in a domain you develop known-knowns and known-unknowns.

As in - the only unknowns left should be tuning and balancing.

Would love to hear your suggestions however on how I can get the unknowns more known.

The reason I say 2030 is ambitious, is because there are still a lot of unknowns to perform whole brain simulation.

Heck, there are slight unknowns with using any non-explicitly defined font.

Unknown unknowns always seem to be where new science pops up.

They know that most startups can't threaten them, and the things that do threaten established players are "unknown unknowns" that no one even thought about.

This is not because he is a "lesser programmer", but due to a case of "unknown unknowns".

> internal data is usually on a need-to-know basis, with necessary NDAs I'd argue that we're in the "unknown unknowns" territory, rather than NDAs being the blocker.

I've been following the Free Code Camp curriculum while also working through some Linux books and Shaw's "Learn C the Hard Way." It's difficult for me to know what things I might be missing--the classic "unknown unknowns"--and I'd like to close whayever gaps there might be.