Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#51

Post by nurple »

Samtidsfobiker wrote: post #27

I too have wondered why it take so long to make stuff in CAD, and why even suggesting that everything should fit together the first time is laughable at best. My theory is that computers can't do rough sketching. No CAD software suite (I think) can iterate and evalute rough ideas as fast and flexible as whiteboard pen in a meeting room can.

Your theory seems sound. I see this theme of free-flow expressivity vs stricture and formalism in the choice of programming languages. CAD is like rust, where it never fits together the first time and parametric stricture lines the road of progress with infinite caltrops in abdication to correctness; javascript is a sketch book where ideas and mutations happen easily and often, correctness is a beautiful illusion brought through the evolutionary nature of experimentation.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#52

Post by AndrewKemendo »

I build architectures for major systems and in every case I start with a blank paper in a Strathmore 400series Sketchbook

About 4 years ago I made a wall of my office into a chalkboard and that’s been where I work out massively complex interdependencies and data workflows

Nothing on a computer remotely compares to the speed and specificity of pen or chalk in hand

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#53

Post by api »

constantcrying wrote: post #30

It definitely is true that a design which could easily be created by hand is harder to create on a computer. The things where computers shine are actually managimg the complexity of a large and complicated systems. What I think the article leaves unspoken (but implied) is the "curse of tools", if you give a person tools he is likely to use them, even if they might not be applicable. Meaning that someone might decide…

The curse of tools applies in computing too. A virtue of languages like Go is that they reduce incidental and gratuitous complexity through the simplicity of the language. A complex language with a powerful type system like Rust or C++ will tempt programmers to use every facet of the language and create baroque overly complex code.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#54

Post by Almondsetat »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #52

I build architectures for major systems and in every case I start with a blank paper in a Strathmore 400series Sketchbook About 4 years ago I made a wall of my office into a chalkboard and that’s been where I work out massively complex interdependencies and data workflows Nothing on a computer remotely compares to the speed and specificity of pen or chalk in hand

Except a tablet with pen support

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#56

Post by rdlecler1 »

This analysis ignores the impact of competition. A car produced today is better (and more complex to make) than a car produced in 1980.

Technological productivity isn’t just about improving the number of units or dollar value produced/hours input. Technology can make products more competitive without any increase in productivity by making them better, and, therefore more attractive, to customers even if unit cost or volume stays fixed.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#57

Post by ratsmack »

dopylitty wrote: post #34

For similar reasons to those mentioned in the article it's possible the past century will be seen as a dark age by future humans. Computers are incredibly fragile and depend on complex systems (eg the electricity grid) to even operate. They also can't persist data even across several decades reliably. Yet we've created a society where nothing can be done without a computer and all our data is stored in computers inst…

The problem is that complex systems have not made us more knowledgeable and capable, but instead they have become a crutch.

https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont...

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#58

Post by beretguy »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #56

This analysis ignores the impact of competition. A car produced today is better (and more complex to make) than a car produced in 1980. Technological productivity isn’t just about improving the number of units or dollar value produced/hours input. Technology can make products more competitive without any increase in productivity by making them better, and, therefore more attractive, to customers even if unit cost or…

I don’t know. We need to define “better” first. My friend has 1970s F150 that still drives. “For how long will car run so that i don’t have to buy a new one” - that’s my definition of “better”. Will modern cars run 50 years from now?

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#59

Post by zeroonetwothree »

beretguy wrote: post #58
rdlecler1 wrote: post #56

This analysis ignores the impact of competition. A car produced today is better (and more complex to make) than a car produced in 1980. Technological productivity isn’t just about improving the number of units or dollar value produced/hours input. Technology can make products more competitive without any increase in productivity by making them better, and, therefore more attractive, to customers even if unit cost or…

I don’t know. We need to define “better” first. My friend has 1970s F150 that still drives. “For how long will car run so that i don’t have to buy a new one” - that’s my definition of “better”. Will modern cars run 50 years from now?

Modern cars seem to be vastly more reliable than even cars from the 90s. They also generally have nicer features

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#60

Post by dahart »

beretguy wrote: post #58
rdlecler1 wrote: post #56

This analysis ignores the impact of competition. A car produced today is better (and more complex to make) than a car produced in 1980. Technological productivity isn’t just about improving the number of units or dollar value produced/hours input. Technology can make products more competitive without any increase in productivity by making them better, and, therefore more attractive, to customers even if unit cost or…

I don’t know. We need to define “better” first. My friend has 1970s F150 that still drives. “For how long will car run so that i don’t have to buy a new one” - that’s my definition of “better”. Will modern cars run 50 years from now?

Car longevity has been increasing over time [1], despite anecdotes of a few long-lived vehicles here and there. So, cars are getting better by your metric. They’re also getting better by all other metrics: safety, fuel economy, speed, reliability, conveniences, comfort, style, etc., etc.

I’ve driven a still-running 70’s F-150 recently and owned a 2020s F-150 for a year. There is practically no comparison, I would never buy the 70s vehicle given the choice, they are worlds apart. The 70s truck is uncomfortable, slow, and unsafe in today’s traffic. It is also temperamental and requires more maintenance, cold in the cabin in the winter, hard to see when it’s raining or snowing. Probably the only thing I could say honestly about the 70s truck that’s better in any way is that the purchase price was lower.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity#Statistics

Post reply on HN