Understanding the uncertainty of a decision is important to make good decisions however, software massively benefits from first mover advantage so there is a reason why absolutism (even when usually wrong) is actually beneficial. For every conversation you have where you debate the nuanced merits of a direction you give your competitor that many more minutes of time to beat you to the punch. Facebook isn't doing bad because zuckerberg decided to use PHP. Most technology companies have the luxury of being wrong, what should be elaborated on here is how this theory doesn't apply to new areas people from tech want to apply it to (see: anything that has risk you have to actually consider).
I'm 50% sure this is a good article.
A person with strong opinions loosely held is unreliable. Today they fully agree with you and tomorrow you're the devil.
The problem with "strong opinions, loosely held" is that "strong" and "loosely" are poorly defined.
"Cubicles are worse than open-plan offices" is a strong opinion, but so is "Only brain-dead worker drones would put up with having to work in a cubicle."
Putting an uncertainty measure on the two statements won't have the same effect (to be clear, adding an "I am 90% sure that.." preface to the second statement changes very little).
In egalitarian non-competitive environments I am 90% in agreement that this can be useful, however as a philosophy for life I am certain that you will get further by speaking with conviction (strong opinions loosely held), and I don't consider it good advice to give someone outside of those environments.