Ask HN: What problem in your industry is a potential startup?

I think both of you are talking past each other here.

The crux of your argument is that an outsider may be able to pattern-match better than industry insiders/domain experts. In other words, an outsider can recognize a potential solution by translating his/her experience with an efficient solution from a different industry.

He is saying that you need to properly understand things from the perspective of an industry insider before you declare that your solution is disruptive. In other words, you need to understand why things are the way they are before talking of reformation. This is the central lesson behind Chesterton's famous "Taking a Fence Down" [0] quote.

[0] https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

>Doesn't this take money away from your firm?

No, because we are in fact competing on cost and client-recognized quality, and to a lesser extent time. Plus our fees are driven more by the market than by our actual costs, so if we billed fewer hours, we would simply bill at a higher rate to reach the same expected fee while still maintaining our position in the marketplace. Or if we could reduce our fee, we might be able to win more market share.

The pejorative term in the industry for padding billing with useless busy work is "fee justification," which really shouldn't ever be necessary. Especially in my practice area, because there's always more work that can be done to flesh out our deliverables, which in turn makes them more effective for convincing the IRS (or state equivalent) or an appeals judge. When I say I've cut thousands of dollars of charge hours, we didn't simply stop charging those hours, we allocated them to more useful, value added activities.

Right now, staff spend far too much time inefficiently manipulating data in Excel, manually organizing exhibits, and a variety of other mundane, low cognitive effort tasks (I can't really specify what kinds because that would essentially doxx me). They feel productive, they look productive, and they meet their charge hour goals. And it allows them to procrastinate on the more mentally taxing work, like evaluating the relevant legal and technical tax issues, which in turn detracts from the quality of our service. Our clients aren't paying us to be extra-expensive outsourced spreadsheet monkeys. They're paying us to eliminate uncertainty about complicated legal and tax issues. So freeing up engagement budget and the staff's mental bandwidth to focus on the high value added cognitive services is tremendously useful in improving quality.

And in terms of time, we compete on that in some cases where there's an audit, exam, or appeal deadline and the client came to us late in the game. But that's an edge case and relatively rare. Certainly having a reputation for being quick, efficient, and timely wouldn't hurt our market position, though.

Not a problem in industry, but rather in society: people rapidly losing jobs due to automation

We all know why this is happening. One way to try to "solve" this problem is fighting the change (Luddites), but this doesn't work. Also if people don't have enough income, they stop spending - who's going to buy products and services anymore?

Another possible solution would be that companies which automate most of it's work are owned by the community in which they operate.

Let's take banks for example. Most of the jobs in banking system can and will be automated. Imagine a country/state that has three banks - each of them is owned by a third of the population (shareholders). When a bank makes profit, each of the shareholders gets dividends out of it. The same example can be applied to other industries and in total people would get (in a form of dividends) the Universal Basic Income (which everybody is talking about these days).

Don't get me wrong, this is not communism. Companies would not be government owned, there would still be competition and private companies would still exist.

Anyway, there are also other ways to tackle the problem mentioned at the beginning. As Brexit and US elections showed us, it's starting to affect many people and needs to be addressed asap.

I would love to see that as well. I have a project with similar goals (posted above). I would like for users to be able to simply call built in functions to do the normal tedious stuff like stress in rods, beams, etc.

A fellow structural engineer here. I think that there's little room for innovation in the "calc" area. The cost of doing calcs is a small fraction of the overall budget of a structural project. Modeling/drawings is where it's at. The analysis/design toolset of a structural engineer (the FEA/design programs) hasn't changed in essence since the 80's outside of drafting/modeling, and for good reason: the marginal cost of an engineer perfecting their analysis exceeds marginal revenue. There's a sweet spot where an experienced structural engineer knows to stop refining their calcs, with the rest of the effort is spent on detailing, which sets apart good structural design from mediocre.

Where I would invest (if I were Autodesk or their competitor) is in releasing CAD tools for free in exchange for a consent to use the designs/details internally for ML purposes. Would love to contribute if anyone is working on such a product.