Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 460 posts

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#71
The answer depends very much on the context. Are you a high school graduate look for a field to study? A mid-career person looking for a hobby? Someone considering a career change? A end-career wealthy person looking for a place to dump money on?

Personally, I believe the most important problems are mostly relationship problems in other words politics. The solutions there are simple but not easy. For example, world peace is simple: Everybody just stop killing each other. However, getting everybody to agree on that is ridiculously hard.

My general thoughts are:

1. I have a certain set of skills and strengths that I can contribute. I should use them instead of doing stuff I'm not good at because that should optimize the global productivity.

2. I should work on things where return of investment is best. So do not work on things where a return is unlikely, e.g. intergalactic travel or fixing email, or where the return is not worth it, e.g. cheaper ice cream or a flappy bird clone.

3. Keep track of big problems where the time/opportunity has not come yet. This is inspired by Hammings talk on research. It also applies to lots of free software though. For example, if Twitter would shut down tomorrow, then the Fediverse would be there to catch the fallout. So it is of some importance to work on open alternatives to popular services. The iPhones success was mostly waiting for the right time, when mobile Internet, mobile computing, and app-store market structure all were ready enough.

Unfortunately, in terms of my hobbies I'm still mostly suffering from the Paradox of Choice. Too many options to make a decision, so I don't do anything. Let check Hacker News again...

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#72
post #70

Just wane say most people have no time to think about this (outside western countries) they just want to survive

Maybe that's a sign that incentive structures are the most important (meta) problem to work on.

Maybe the most important problem of all is to make it trivially easy for people to solve the problem of this thread. (And not only easy, but lucrative.) Once that mechanism is in action, you'd have done 100x more good for the world than you'd have done choosing to work, say, in the energy sector instead of AI.

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#73
>It's a short life, so I want to be careful with this decision, to avoid any future regrets

Work on what you enjoy and/or can make you a living.

You are not here to solve some big world problem that you don't particularly care for (but think you "have to" care).

In fact, why even think that your contribution on that sector (healthcare) would be that big or required, seeing that you don't even know if you want to work on that area?

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#74
post #40
post #15

You’ll never regret choosing something you want to work on. Especially when what you want to work also makes money like energy or AI. Also, these fields are not evil or useless like weapon design or hedge funds. They are actually useful to society, so you feel like contributing to the general good. Don’t worry about healthcare, there are thousands of people who work on healthcare. And, if I may, if you did work on he…

Why do you think Hedge Funds are useless or evil?

How does hedge fund add value to normal people?

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#75
I decided a long time ago that I wanted to work on things that there aren't any design patterns for yet.

Any potential client/startup that comes to me asking for help with their e-commerce business, unless it's something truly unique, I always say, get a Shopify/Squarespace account first don't waste time on designing for something that has so many established design patterns already.

Whereas if someone comes to me for help with robotics, crypto, trading, AI, complex services in healthcare etc, that's where I want to help.

I have recently further decided to focus on industries with jobs aren't desk related (i.e. where you don't sit in front of a computer).

These make up 80% of the just that exist out there yet only get around 1% of the actual investments from ex. Sillicon Vally investors. So our venture studio is now also focusing on that which is a very interesting space and kind of allow me to come full-circle with the kind of jobs my parents had (cleaning lady and plumber).

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#76
post #14

I'm all for egalitarianism in the public sphere, but in private I still believe that there's such a thing as natural born talent. Anyone can probably reach the top 5% in most non-athletic areas given enough time. But if your goal is to maximize your output having already accepted that your time on earth is limited, then the wise thing is to probably steer in directions that have high impact but for you feel dispropor…

>Anyone can probably reach the top 5% in most non-athletic areas given enough time.

At any given time, only the 5% of the population can reach the top 5% in any area.

If anybody could do it and e.g. just 10% did it, then there would be a new 5% (the top 50% of that 10%), and the rest 50% wouldn't be in.

>Thus, I'm a big fan of Peter Theils advice to work on things that satisfy the property that: "if you weren't working on it, this problem would not get solved".

Which is a self-aggrandising way for Theils to say that he helped solve some problems that wouldn't have been solved otherwise.

Unless you have tons of means to contribute (e.g. billions) to some cause, the idea starting out as some e.g. college student that "this problem wont be solved without my help" is 99.9999% BS.

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#77
Usually I do not decide what problems to solve. They just come to me and I try to solve them. I have tried to solve some big problems, but that has never worked out for me.

The "problems" that I solve, or try to solve, come mostly from the following sources: academic colleagues asking questions, natural questions that arise during math seminars, finding the optimal way to reach some goal specified by one of my bosses, finding ways to fix or understand ad hock methods invented by my coworkers, natural questions that occur to me while reading astronomy, math, AI, or economics articles, and lastly, answering mathematical or AI questions about games just because I love games and game theory.

Sometimes problems or questions will remain in my head for years before being solved. Many are never solved, but they are fun to think about.

It is very rare that one of my solutions affects more than 100 people.

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#78
I suppose I decide on a whim or follow inspiration. Among the list of interests is at least one that's practical/money-making. On the other hand, the job took up the entirety of my life while I was working many years ago and was absolutely pointless. In eating up all my time, there wasn't any left to do anything else. I worked during 2008-2010 and it was so bad there wasn't even time to go to the grocery store. If such a situation can be avoided, then you may be able to make it all happen.

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#79
post #20

The focus should not be on "what," but on "why." I just got this advice the other day and it's liberated my thinking. I was (am) stuck in a rut believing that if I just find something I am passionate about it would alleviate the sense of purposelessness that pervades. Not so. Some people can work just for material benefit to themselves and their families. However, eventually that juice runs out because money is just…

> Some people can work just for material benefit to themselves and their families. However, eventually that juice runs out because money is just not useful beyond a point. Admittedly, material benefit to myself and my family isn't the only reason I work. However, the argument that "money is just not useful beyond a point" isn't a strong one in my mind. I'm in my late forties right now and make a reasonable sum of mon…

Right, let me clarify. Let's define three realms of experience for the sake of conversation: (physical/material), (emotional), (intellectual). For simplicity let's assume that all human experiences may be categorised thus.

Now, what can money buy? Only things on the physical level, that is, _sense experiences_. Sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. That's it. Money can't buy love or knowledge. Maybe a library, but not knowledge :)

So even in a naive examination money has limited uses which apply at the physical/material level. It's useful to note that happiness/wellbeing is largely a state of mind and thus you might find someone who is equally or more happy than you despite not having the generator. How is this possible?

The point is that as inherent motivation money just isn't good. People who are incentivised inevitably want greater and greater compensation or they burn out. In contrast, those fired up by a higher ideal (which, of course, includes the wellbeing of the family) are motivated by an initiative to work which is not dependent upon something external.

So, make your money, and install that generator. But don't make the mistake of thinking your wellbeing/happiness is dependent upon XYZ externally.

Re: Ask HN: How did you decide what problems to solve in your lifetime?

#80
post #76
post #14

I'm all for egalitarianism in the public sphere, but in private I still believe that there's such a thing as natural born talent. Anyone can probably reach the top 5% in most non-athletic areas given enough time. But if your goal is to maximize your output having already accepted that your time on earth is limited, then the wise thing is to probably steer in directions that have high impact but for you feel dispropor…

> Anyone can probably reach the top 5% in most non-athletic areas given enough time. At any given time, only the 5% of the population can reach the top 5% in any area. If anybody could do it and e.g. just 10% did it, then there would be a new 5% (the top 50% of that 10%), and the rest 50% wouldn't be in. > Thus, I'm a big fan of Peter Theils advice to work on things that satisfy the property that: "if you weren't wor…

There aren't very many axes along which >5% of the population actively try to improve themselves. This makes it easy to reach the top 5% if one is trying.
Post reply on HN