Stop tech-driven problem-solving

Author provides 2 examples: (1) blockchain and (2) big data Hadoop map reduce

(1) blockchain: most arguments about blockchain always being replaceable with a traditional single node central database conveniently leaves out the constraint for decentralized control. Yes, if you change the ideal goals for the solution, of course you can propose the traditional solution. (E.g. a government central database of property records does not solve the same problem as a decentralized blockchain of property records.)

The problems that blockchains are attempting to solve is real. The more interesting discussion is whether the costs of implementation (whether Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake) will ever deliver on that promise. Two possibilities: (1) subsequent failed attempts of blockchains eventually lead computer scientists to a theorem that states any decentralized scheme always costs more than the economic value returned. (The theorem would be similar to the ironclad conclusions of CAP theorem or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and also similar to discovering you _can_ synthesize gold but the cost (of a nuclear reactor) to do it costs more than the gold itself.) Or (2) more computer science thinking finally makes blockchains feasible for real world applications. Feasibility includes cpu costs, transactions-per-second, 51% attacks, rogue forks, etc.

(2) Hadoop map reduce: he writes...

>"The entire business plan of a ton of companies [...] set up these huge data clusters based on Hadoop and write complex MapReduce queries for basic operations, and wait for the spice to flow. But there’s no end game. When asked, there’s no vision on what to do with the data that will actually make money"

Author should spell out exactly which data companies are spending millions gathering hundreds of terabytes/petabytes with zero clue what to do with it.

Yes, there are all sorts of examples out there of "solutions looking for a problem" but this particular essay is empty of insightful data points.

Blockchain isn't decentralized. The network is run by a handful of companies, mainly in China.

Regarding your point about economic value. Things don't have any in inherent economic value. Price is a function of demand and supply. A thing is only worth something because somebody wants to do something with it.

So, a theorem which says decentralised scheme "costs" more than economic value is not possible to have.

For example, say gold is very expensive to synthesise. But if it is absolutely necessary for some job the cost becomes worth i9t and the price would reflect that.

Big data: they nailed it! Every single application of 'big data' i ever saw was hype-driven, and much easier solved by boring, traditional things that were there in K&R era already: hash maps, Berkeley DB, and memory-mapped files. Sometimes taking 100x less resources, like literally doing on a single computer what took a huge Hadoop cluster.

Maybe on a Google scale of data, that doesn't work as easily. Maybe when you have a billion dollar infrastructure bill, big data works better. But it leaves out 99% of companies who's data isn't that big.

Funnily enough, microcomputers themselves were once the technology solution in search of a problem. The "home computer" fad of the 80s promised lots of applications that didn't quite pan out, including finance, "helping kids with the homework", "the little lady can store her recipes", and home automation. The only ones that really panned out were games (including edutainment), spreadsheets, word processing, and maybe small single-user databases. Anything more required much more sophisticated and expensive equipment, which wouldn't become commonplace till around the 386 era.