Perhaps reductionism can be seen as knowing when to scale down.
Perhaps the benefit of small updates is that they're faster, have lower costs, or allow for more fine-grained tuning. (Or a rougher tuning process can do the job with lots of updates.)
Scaling up can also be done across time*, or you can switch to other projects. (After you build a bridge, why scale up? If you've found you like making bridges, maybe it could be a business - but if you built the bridge because you're building a city, the next thing to do might not be more of the same.)
*There might be a difference in design between "make it as big as possible/make as many of these as possible" versus "make one thing that will last for as big a time as possible/is as stable as possible.
Comments
Perhaps reductionism can be seen as knowing when to scale down.
Perhaps the benefit of small updates is that they're faster, have lower costs, or allow for more fine-grained tuning. (Or a rougher tuning process can do the job with lots of updates.)
Scaling up can also be done across time*, or you can switch to other projects. (After you build a bridge, why scale up? If you've found you like making bridges, maybe it could be a business - but if you built the bridge because you're building a city, the next thing to do might not be more of the same.)
*There might be a difference in design between "make it as big as possible/make as many of these as possible" versus "make one thing that will last for as big a time as possible/is as stable as possible.