3 ms·

I probably shit on the idea more than I needed to, simply because it's entirely possible that you could be looking to form a team and rally around a serious pro

I probably shit on the idea more than I needed to, simply because it's entirely possible that you could be looking to form a team and rally around a serious problem, and that team could be composed of people who deeply understand the problem in addition to fresh faces with a different approach. And I would fully support that approach. Lately I've been approached by a lot of "startups" who have made it inadvertently apparent that they know about a serious problem in the industry but have no experience in the industry, are taking absolutely idiotic and long-discredited approaches to solving the problem, and don't even speak enough industry lingo to be understood. These are the people I tried to address with my comment. If you'll notice, I was actually the top commenter on your original discussion [0]. I still stand by everything I've said in that comment. It is a potential multi-billion dollar idea, and the market size can be verified by pretty much anybody with basic market research experience. And while I have plenty of valuable and marketable experience in the Supply Chain and Logistics industry, even I am well short of qualified to lead a company trying to tackle that problem. I would definitely consider being a part of a team that was formed to solve the problem, but here's the thing: If you learned about the idea from an Ask HN thread, I almost certainly wouldn't join your team. Maybe if Elon Musk vouched for you and Marc Andreesen was throwing money at you. Maybe if you and 9 other committed engineers had a collective 100 man years of proven experience solving hard problems across a variety of industries. But trying to be the leader of a team trying to solve a problem that you didn't know about and don't fully understand is a huge obstacle to overcome. And I think it is perfectly reasonable of me to try to dissuade the average HN reader from even trying. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799851

ThomPete 10y ago
I think this is were you are missing the bigger picture though. The solutions to the problem in your industry might not be based on the skills or insights of your industry. It might be that someone recognizes the similarity from another industry where the problem was solved in a specific way or that the insight just so happens to be solvable based on the knowledge of some specific technology. And it's NOT about ideas it's about recognizing the real problem that hides underneath and which requires experience to understand. Here is the essay I ended writing https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-47ee63bb3511#.886vq07kq https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-4... this might give you a better perspective on how this is useful no matter what constellation.
- sah2ed 10y ago
  I think both of you are talking past each other here. The crux of your argument is that an outsider may be able to pattern-match better than industry insiders/domain experts. In other words, an outsider can recognize a potential solution by translating his/her experience with an efficient solution from a different industry. He is saying that you need to properly understand things from the perspective of an industry insider before you declare that your solution is disruptive. In other words, you need to understand why things are the way they are before talking of reformation. This is the central lesson behind Chesterton's famous "Taking a Fence Down" [0] quote. [0] https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    But thats the whole point though. To combine knowledge from insiders with outsiders. Never said anything else.

ThomPete 10y ago

I think this is were you are missing the bigger picture though. The solutions to the problem in your industry might not be based on the skills or insights of your industry. It might be that someone recognizes the similarity from another industry where the problem was solved in a specific way or that the insight just so happens to be solvable based on the knowledge of some specific technology. And it's NOT about ideas it's about recognizing the real problem that hides underneath and which requires experience to understand. Here is the essay I ended writing https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-47ee63bb3511#.886vq07kq https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-4... this might give you a better perspective on how this is useful no matter what constellation.

sah2ed 10y ago
I think both of you are talking past each other here. The crux of your argument is that an outsider may be able to pattern-match better than industry insiders/domain experts. In other words, an outsider can recognize a potential solution by translating his/her experience with an efficient solution from a different industry. He is saying that you need to properly understand things from the perspective of an industry insider before you declare that your solution is disruptive. In other words, you need to understand why things are the way they are before talking of reformation. This is the central lesson behind Chesterton's famous "Taking a Fence Down" [0] quote. [0] https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/
- ThomPete 10y ago
  But thats the whole point though. To combine knowledge from insiders with outsiders. Never said anything else.