One reason I like learning in public is that it gives the learning somewhere to land: a post, a note, a question, a half-working repo. There is something other people can inspect, question, and build on.
I can reread my own notes and miss the same flaw. Sharing them gives someone else a chance to point out an edge case, link prior work I didn't know about, or ask a question I can't answer. None of that is guaranteed by pressing publish. Sometimes nobody responds. But making the work available creates the possibility.
It doesn't have to mean publishing to everyone. A conversation with a trusted colleague can do the same job. Private notes accumulate too, and some ideas need quiet time before an audience is useful. The question is who could help me see something I'm currently missing.
What I value about a public artifact is its reach beyond the original conversation. A solution written down can help the next person who encounters the problem. Their questions can improve it, and I have something to return to when I've forgotten the details myself.
The discomfort is real. Publishing something unfinished feels like an invitation to be judged. I try to make clear what I know, what I've tried, and what I'm still unsure about. Polished work can stay open to correction too; the important part is being willing to revise it.
Shawn Wang's makes a good case for sharing small pieces as you go. His companion is worth reading alongside it. I like having both in view: sharing is a useful practice, not an obligation to turn every bit of learning into content.
A note on a problem you just solved is enough to start. So is a specific question. You don't need to wait until you can write the definitive guide.
I have written separately about : writing as a tool for thinking. This is the other half: what happens when the thinking leaves the drawer.