4 ms·
Agree on the aspect of time. As we have progressed, we now have many levels of abstraction that it is hard to think deeply about the problem. Almost à la like a
by kasperset 6y ago
Agree on the aspect of time. As we have progressed, we now have many levels of abstraction that it is hard to think deeply about the problem. Almost à la like a code that has grown too deep to understand every "bit" of it.
Moreover, I think people now work in teams rather than one individual thinking about the system holistically.
- sillysaurusx 6y agoIt’s possible. It just takes time; very few people are in a position to devote that time. This gives an advantage I haven’t seen discussed: when you put in the time, you make connections no one else thought of. It happens time and again, and it’s a clear pattern at this point. It takes months of daily study, often tedious, with no clear benefit. But the benefits sometimes come. (I wrote “usually” rather than “sometimes,” but that’s not really true. The usual result is that you go to sleep more confused than you started. It’s not till much, much later that the connections even seem relevant.)
- jka 6y agoI like to imagine that at some point we might collectively have a large enough software development population to solve most significant problems comprehensively enough -- and fairly and equitably enough -- for most people that we begin to see developers with increasing amounts of free time. At that point I think we could collectively really begin digging into some of the huge backlog of software bugs and errors that we've built up over time and make everything more reliable, seamless and consistent. It'd be a massive undertaking, especially to solve each issue thoroughly and without causing negative externalities elsewhere. But it'd also be a great puzzle-solving and social challenge, not to mention an educational and useful one.