My original point was that #1 doesn't stay static -- if it did, then I'd be writing perfect code right now. Instead the code you write gets harder.
Even then, I don't think the author intended you to take that so literally. That's an easy way to describe the problem to someone who isn't a programmer. The negative feedback loop is much longer and more complicated than that.
Even then, I don't think the author intended you to take that so literally. That's an easy way to describe the problem to someone who isn't a programmer. The negative feedback loop is much longer and more complicated than that.