[atomicnature]

Not necessarily.

Higher-level design often involves dissolving apparent tensions or opposites through layering or more sophisticated mechanisms, while preserving the benefits of both.

Example ->

Proposition: "Phew, we have to choose between convenience and security."

Naive design: "Let's find a watered-down compromise."

Good design: "Let's layer security on top of convenience by designing the system so users don't have to choose, or water either one down."

Great companies have a history of dissolving apparent contradictions under a single roof via good design.

[necovek]

Some might actually say that they found "a perfect compromise" where both use-cases are served well — this seems to be very much a linguistic preference today, regardless of the fact that "compromise" originally came from "making concessions".

[zer00eyz]

Sometimes good design is that there is NO compromise.

The choices made that lead to the 737max disaster are a great example of what happens when NO isnt allowed to be an option.