Crazy New Ideas • Hacker News Board

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#41

Post by hoppyhoppy2 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

rsp1984 wrote: post #29

I agree with the general gist of this, however the crux is that most ideas that turn out to be revolutionary just don't originate within the accepted circle of domain experts, exactly because being a domain expert makes you more unlikely to think out of the box. Google didn't come out of Yahoo. Napster wasn't founded by music industry execs. Friendster didn't evolve into Facebook. Match.com didn't invent Tinder. It's…

Why are all your examples software companies? Certainly not because most of the world's revolutionary ideas are from programmers. Perhaps there are benefits to domain knowledge for coming up with revolutionary ideas in, say, biology or chemistry or electrical engineering or literature or political science or manufacturing or medicine...

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#42

Post by danybittel » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

That is kind of reaching for the stars. Or shall I say last straw argument. I think a much easier winner is if you have a domain expert in one area and bring his or her knowledge to another field. A Designer who creates a web app to design logos. A fitness guru who develops a Drink. A car maker who builds space ships.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#43

Post by II2II » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

The reference to the Copernican Model of the solar system is an interesting one since it produced less accurate predictions than the Ptolemaic Model. Improving the predictions of the Copernican model initially involved the introduction of epicycles, diminishing the value of the crazy new idea.

It took the work of Kepler (elliptical orbits) and Newton (a physical basis for elliptical orbits) to elevate the heliocentric model to the status that it enjoys today.

There are two reasons why I bring this up: one is the validity of many of Paul Graham's assertions and conclusions. The other is to point out that things aren't so simple. Copernicus did not reap the rewards of his ideas since it took the work of others to prove those ideas. In fields outside of science, there is little reason to expect people to arrive upon similar conclusions. (Even within the sciences, there is no reason to believe we would converge on similar conclusions in the same time frame via different paths.)

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#44

Post by cblconfederate » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:43 PM UTC

should be prefaced with "within the context of american capitalism", because i don't think such views on personal ego and taking credit apply universally. There were a lot more crazy ideas when experimental science wasn't there to debunk them. And many science fields even today are lacking ideas, not methods, but not necessarily for fear of being ridiculed.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#45

Post by halfmatthalfcat » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:44 PM UTC

I feel like the same thing can be said about Boring Old Ideas. If the person who is speaking to you knows what they're talking about, there's good chance that they've identified a gap/opportunity and you should listen to them.

This seems more like an exercise in listening and trust than whether the idea is crazy or novel.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#46

Post by dd36 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:44 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #25

anotha1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mighty is a good idea, marketed to the wrong people. I mean, who wouldn't just upgrade their computer? New software is a cost, even if it's "free." I'm sure there's a niche, though. Like low-paid workers needing to do a lot on their crappy personal machines.

I think that corporations may want to force all their users to use Mighty so that they can control exactly what goes on in the browser -- it is easier to pay Mighty to "virtualize" the browser, than it is to keep all computers up to date and without malicious extensions. Maybe even prevent browsers from downloading files onto the local computer. A full recording of each user's sessions. Integrated password manager th…

Don’t they already do this with VMs for less cost?

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#47

Post by gustavo-fring » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:44 PM UTC

II2II wrote: post #43

The reference to the Copernican Model of the solar system is an interesting one since it produced less accurate predictions than the Ptolemaic Model. Improving the predictions of the Copernican model initially involved the introduction of epicycles, diminishing the value of the crazy new idea. It took the work of Kepler (elliptical orbits) and Newton (a physical basis for elliptical orbits) to elevate the heliocentri…

Graham has a tendency to use hindsight to show that, yes, indeed he is contrarian and genius.

The Ethereum people do it, too. They use the example of old massively successful tech to prove that Eth too can catch on, but they don't cite all the failures.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#48

Post by antipauline » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:45 PM UTC

Why are you all upvoting this shit?

Just because Paul Graham wrote it, doesn't mean it's worth reading. Usually the opposite, in fact.

You people need to lay off the PG cultism. Stop worshipping every word he writes just because you idolize his riches, or want to be him, or whatever.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#49

Post by gustavo-fring » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #31

rsp1984 wrote: post #29

I agree with the general gist of this, however the crux is that most ideas that turn out to be revolutionary just don't originate within the accepted circle of domain experts, exactly because being a domain expert makes you more unlikely to think out of the box. Google didn't come out of Yahoo. Napster wasn't founded by music industry execs. Friendster didn't evolve into Facebook. Match.com didn't invent Tinder. It's…

Those are all excellent examples of the main reason why innovation can not be done in established businesses: the fear of cannibalizing the cash cow will stifle any real innovation.

Was the Playstation not revolutionary?

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#50

Post by bob33212 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

This is a great essay. I follow similar logic when assessing bitcoin.

1. Listen to as many viewpoints as possible 2. Remove the people who are not domain experts 3. Remove the people who are blinded by their own financial interests or ego. 4. Remove the people who are influenced by social pressures ( good and bad ) 5. Assign probabilities to the remaining viewpoints evenly. 6. Repeat steps 1-5 and chart the progression of the probability space.

Currently, It seems 40%+ likely that Bitcoin will end up as an accidental Ponzi scheme with a crash based on late adopters rushing out. But there is also still a 10%+ chance that it replaces gold as a currency hedge for the next 20+ years and 5+ percent chance that it becomes a first class currency.