111–120 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a general observation. Wasn't specifically answering your question about PG's writing.
Lol what do you mean a "general observation"? You stated plainly that "Many articles now are cleanly formatted tweetstorms". Which ones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An interesting theory as to why we never evolved with wheels is the idea that an evolutionary improvement requires a viable intermediate state Not really; wheels aren't an improvement in the first place so there is no need to explain why they didn't develop. Note that it's easy to make robots that use wheels, and difficult to make robots that use legs, but we make legged robots anyway so that they'll be able to han…
Okay, but evolution has given us some pretty expansive diversity in traits across the biological world. No single trait is pareto optimal, but relatively superior/inferior depending on context. Wheels have some pretty extreme efficiency advantages, useful for both speed as well as endurance. They come with disadvantages too, but there are plenty of animals who never need to leave environments where legs are optimal o…
Human engineering is much more efficient - building things we understand, we accomplish in decades what takes nature millions of years or is straight up not viable.
I think pg understates the problem. It isn't just fashionable. Think about how the solutions we use today evolved. Someone had an idea originally and certain decisions were made about that approach.. those that best adapted to the conditions of the time were successful... rinse and repeat over several decades. Those ideas that preserved the past were more likely to succeed because they preserved the ecosystem that al…
Most of the time new products evolve from the current state. Sometimes there's pent-up demand/frustration/hostility that allows for a clean break to a new solution (even if that solution has just as many problems, at least they're not the same problems).
Probably nine times out of ten people are looking for a better buggy whip. Without any other information, improving what you have is statistically the better bet. You have a very strong predictor, but no guarantees.
I think pg understates the problem. It isn't just fashionable. Think about how the solutions we use today evolved. Someone had an idea originally and certain decisions were made about that approach.. those that best adapted to the conditions of the time were successful... rinse and repeat over several decades. Those ideas that preserved the past were more likely to succeed because they preserved the ecosystem that al…
"Ideas that diverged too much from the existing successful tech had a huge obstacle in their way: they had to recreate all of the existing solutions in their new model.” You’re so right! There are great examples of companies that preserved the existing ecosystem of solutions (Facebook with PHP, Microsoft with C++, Google with Java and C++, maybe also Amazon with Perl 5 and C++). There are also great examples of succe…
In this thread a guy talks about using the Q language and then someone else jumps in and says 'it's not scalable etc.' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21854793 What if all this cloud/k8s / serverless stuff is really all piffle? What if running stuff on dedicated hardware ends up a better solution in some fashion?
I think pg understates the problem. It isn't just fashionable. Think about how the solutions we use today evolved. Someone had an idea originally and certain decisions were made about that approach.. those that best adapted to the conditions of the time were successful... rinse and repeat over several decades. Those ideas that preserved the past were more likely to succeed because they preserved the ecosystem that al…
This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…
There is a lot of evidence for what Paul says once you dig into a specific field. Taking two fields I know well: in physics, there was decades of work on fundamental questions on systems in equilibrium, while many obviously important open questions in out-of-equilibrium systems went neglected until the last 10 years or so when there's been a huge upsurge. These questions were known to be open 20 and 30 years ago, but…
I think the reasons tensor networks are unexplored is interesting: The tools and techniques for dealing with them build on those for neural networks and the theoretical benefits are not clear cut enough to gain them a foothold over the practical results of neural networks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2019-08-16/josh-wolfe-d...
This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…
I am wondering how far the essay would go if it were not from PG.
devoting more than 20 percent of your time to problems that are unfashionable but dear to you is ill-advised because: a. they don't pay the bill b. they take time and in the grand scheme of things spending time with others on things you all understand is better than being happy alone.
but of course there are exceptions...