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

Elon Musk on First Principles

blog.microlancer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#51

Post by graeme »

wwkeyboard wrote: post #36
aridiculous wrote: post #31

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you mus…

I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the cliche you're looking for. - Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.

The parent is referring to a different phenomenon. "The weight of history" might be a way of describing it. In many domains you can't just start over fresh.

"Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#52

Post by gnaritas »

jonnathanson wrote: post #43
ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

I'm a big fan of reasoning from first principles, but in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. When someone can't reason from…

"You could do ok with the Socratic Method (asking questions that might lead them to understand where they were mistaken) but even that was dangerous if done in a group context" This is very true, and I've learned it the hard way. I do not advise using the Socratic Method to dissect the reasoning of a "needs-to-be-right" personality in a group setting, particularly if that person happens to be your superior. It's been…

The problem is the Socratic Method should only be used on someone who accepts that you're trying to teach them something. It's insulting when used in another context.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#53

Post by codex »

It's funny that the example given is of Musk reasoning to how batteries can be much cheaper than they are. And yet Tesla buys their raw batteries from third party manufacturers just like almost all other EV manufacturers. So I'm a bit confused as to the value of this particular example. Furthermore, batteries still do not cost anywhere close to what Musk predicts. Perhaps that's because he completely ignores manufacturing costs in his analysis. The price of a sewing needle costs a lot more than the cost of the raw materials.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#54

Post by thangalin »

stinkytaco wrote: post #47
thangalin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In freemium models, some features are free. People should be able to use the app without submitting contact details. I did not state that all features had to be free. Enough features should be available that users can quickly understand premium account benefits. Deciding what features to make free vs. premium can be a difficult business decision. Then, unlock premium features for registered (paying) accounts. (Trial…

For the life of me I can't find the link right now, but it was from Pat and Bingo Card Creator. He requires an account for troubleshooting and support purposes. The vast majority of support is from first time/free users and when they did not create an account, support was a headache at best and impossible at worst. Perhaps there were other solutions for him, but if you can get people to create an account and it makes…

A/B testing could determine whether my hypothesis is correct, which is: more people will use and share a site if an account is not required to use its minimal functionality (think pastebin, jsfiddle, and Wikipedia) because account creation is a barrier to usage.

Thought-experiment. Imagine two nearly identical websites: one requires registration and the other does not. What site will people be more likely to use?

There were other solutions to the troubleshooting problem. For example, only registered accounts can contact for support. Note that there are three types of accounts: an unregistered account (free), a registered account (also free), and a premium account (paid).

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#55

Post by gnaritas »

thangalin wrote: post #5

"Reasoning from first principles: What’s the least information I need to collect from the user to make the app functional?" Functional web apps do not need any user information. People should be able to use the app without having to submit any contact details. An account is created for them automatically, and, presuming they like the app, they can provide contact details later. Similarly, most apps do not require pas…

> so leveraging all the work that has gone into making e-mail secure is a win.

What? Email isn't close to secure.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#56

Post by sillysaurus2 »

aridiculous wrote: post #31

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you mus…

This line of reasoning puts a glass ceiling on your own intelligence. Are you sure that's a good idea?

"Oh well, I probably won't be able to anyway" seems a mistaken way to go about life. Or at least a dull one.

I'd rather know the truth than believe everyone else's mistaken ideas. The only way to do that is via first principles.

Personally, I rather like pg's belief: we're only accomplishing 1% of what's possible. More people should believe that our very way of life is malleable; after all, it is. Mentally buying into the life your generation happened to be born into isn't a good idea, because it implies we've figured everything out.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#57

Post by jrsnyder »

possibilistic wrote: post #46
xzephyr wrote: post #34

The so-called reason by analogy is just gradient descent to approach local optima in optmization. The "by first principle" is just providing an approximate (ideally convex) model and solve it analytically for global optima. The problem is generally very hard (#P hard), both for formulating the problem and solving it. Global optimum of course in theory is better, but the quality of your objective function and constrai…

I love this explanation. Do you happen to blog about optimization topics?

Seconded.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#58

Post by coffeemug »

aridiculous wrote: post #31

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you mus…

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world.

No. Reasoning from first principles is hard, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. It's not enough to be contrarian, you have to be contrarian and right, and that's really, really, really hard. Most people reason from first principles, come up with a bunch of bad ideas, and then blame it on inertia and establishment. 99% of the time, the reality is that they're being contrarian and wrong, they just can't accept the latter part.

Consider chess. I know the first principles with 100% certainty, but that doesn't help me predict an outcome of a game. I can barely even analyze a single move to any serious degree, let alone two moves ahead. It's because I'm a bad chess player, and most people are bad at reasoning from first principles. Elon Musk is one of may be five people in the world who can actually pull it off.

Learning to blame failures on my own ineptitude rather than on the establishment has gotten me an epsilon closer to Musk's awesomeness. I'm still lightyears away, though.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#59

Post by sillysaurus2 »

coffeemug wrote: post #58
aridiculous wrote: post #31

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you mus…

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. No. Reasoning from first principles is hard , and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. It's not enough to be contrarian, you have to be contrarian and right, and that's really, really, really hard. Most people reason from first principles, come up with a bunch of bad ideas, and then blame it on inertia a…

It's because I'm a bad chess player, and most people are bad at reasoning from first principles. Elon Musk is one of may be five people in the world who can actually pull it off.

Hero worship is mistaken. The reason you're bad at chess is because you believe you're bad at chess, so you don't practice. Similarly, most people don't believe they can be Musk, so they don't even try.

Re: Elon Musk on First Principles

#60

Post by vbtemp »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

I'm a big fan of reasoning from first principles, but in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. When someone can't reason from…

> in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great.

Spoken like a true wise man.

Post reply on HN