3 ms·

I want that world as well and generally agree with you, but the reality of modern life can be complex. Think of the biology of the human body or practically an

I want that world as well and generally agree with you, but the reality of modern life can be complex. Think of the biology of the human body or practically any other industry. I've been out of college for about a decade and have moved roles several times at my company and I've only managed to learn a sliver of the complexity of my department. We have public documents that are thousands of pages long and that doesn't even get into the software. It's true that a much simpler solution exists like the industry did prior to computers, but it was probably an order of magnitude less efficient. Now we save large amounts of money at the expense of much higher complexity. You need a lot more people because each person can only specialize in a few things and has to abstract away the rest and trust that other co-workers are taking care of the other parts that you don't understand. It's frustrating, but I think most industries have this. Think of a nuclear power plant. There are hundreds of systems and processes. Is it even possible to learn them all in a single career past a bare minimum? What about outside the plant? The plant connects to the transmission grid which is operated by an entity and you have power marketers which sell your plant's output into a market which is operated by another organization running sophisticated software to optimize the region. There are several regulatory bodies involved from the NRC to the State Utility Commissions, to NERC & FERC that all have some regularory jurisdiction over you. Once your electricity gets on the distribution grid it is handled by utilities and so forth. The world is just insanely complex. Could it be simpler? Yes, but there is an efficiency cost to that as well. Chuck Moore's chips are cool, but do they solve any current problems? If they were significantly better, people would be jumping on them. The reality is they're probably better for some niche uses. Certainly not enough to leave the confines of Windows or Linux with a traditional toolchain. Even without all the inertia it would be a tough sell. I don't know anything about complexity theory, but I imagine computer science is under the same rules as the rest of the universe. This also might be where Chesterton's Fence is relevant. We shouldn't argue to take down the fence when we don't know why it was put up to begin with.

_fx6v 6y ago
I think a lot of complexity is introduced in our world today as the economics require complexity for certain demographics to survive. Complexity generates profits. It also erodes the peak innovation potential of the entire species by increasing the distance to experiment and be curious while also creating greater need of dependence to survive. I think a lot of your examples can be fixed. Nuclear Power Plants are simple actually - they need to be simple. Complexity kills them, and human's are the weakest link. Process is introduced to ail complexity. Complex ideas introduce more complex processes to include more humans which ends up creating less efficiency. Many examples of that. A big reason why startups can compete with corporations is that startups have less complexity but then introduce more as they age usually through poor problem-solving and get slower. Companies like Apple have punched above the average weight to survive those chasms of complexity and still move quickly unburdened but obviously they have their own class of warts. More thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479238 Agree with you but also I think we can do better is basically what I'm saying. I don't see the world today as "this is just how it is and that's that" - there's no physical rules why we have a society the way it is today - it's mostly imaginative rules. I want to change the game, the current board is lame.
- 7thaccount 6y ago
  I think we're 75% in agreement. I think things are way too complex and should be simplified, but there is a hard limit on how much can be stripped away. A nuclear plant isn't simple. There's a reason why they require more than 1 person to maintain and that they have only existed for 0.00000000001% of human history. Conceptually they're simple if you black-box abstract the majority of the plant which is loaded with technology from the structure to the cooling structures, sensors, waste disposal, regulatory structures which prevent another Chernobyl...etc etc. You're abstracting all of that necessary complexity away (just like we do with modern tooling) and calling it simple when it isn't.

_fx6v 6y ago

I think a lot of complexity is introduced in our world today as the economics require complexity for certain demographics to survive. Complexity generates profits. It also erodes the peak innovation potential of the entire species by increasing the distance to experiment and be curious while also creating greater need of dependence to survive. I think a lot of your examples can be fixed. Nuclear Power Plants are simple actually - they need to be simple. Complexity kills them, and human's are the weakest link. Process is introduced to ail complexity. Complex ideas introduce more complex processes to include more humans which ends up creating less efficiency. Many examples of that. A big reason why startups can compete with corporations is that startups have less complexity but then introduce more as they age usually through poor problem-solving and get slower. Companies like Apple have punched above the average weight to survive those chasms of complexity and still move quickly unburdened but obviously they have their own class of warts. More thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24479238 Agree with you but also I think we can do better is basically what I'm saying. I don't see the world today as "this is just how it is and that's that" - there's no physical rules why we have a society the way it is today - it's mostly imaginative rules. I want to change the game, the current board is lame.

7thaccount 6y ago
I think we're 75% in agreement. I think things are way too complex and should be simplified, but there is a hard limit on how much can be stripped away. A nuclear plant isn't simple. There's a reason why they require more than 1 person to maintain and that they have only existed for 0.00000000001% of human history. Conceptually they're simple if you black-box abstract the majority of the plant which is loaded with technology from the structure to the cooling structures, sensors, waste disposal, regulatory structures which prevent another Chernobyl...etc etc. You're abstracting all of that necessary complexity away (just like we do with modern tooling) and calling it simple when it isn't.