4 ms·
> rather than solving for success, solve for failure. If you want to design a dust filter that works at 600 Celsius within a steel mill, instead design all the
by dTal 5y ago
> rather than solving for success, solve for failure. If you want to design a dust filter that works at 600 Celsius within a steel mill, instead design all the ways you could develop a filter that would fail miserably in those conditions.
That's a strange example. There are infinite ways of not accomplishing a task, and as a non-expert in filter design I have no trouble listing them: make the filter out of butter, make it just a big hole, pay someone to pluck dust out of the air with tweezers... how exactly is this helping?
- kolinko 5y agoThe point is to make a filter that works in lower temperatures but breaks around 600C. Using the other example - of course to kill the most pilots you coukd out them in a big meat grinder or just blow up their planes. But the point is to design planes so that they both fly and kill pilots.
- stanrivers 5y agoHahaha I love this response; yes, you can always change the rules of the game, so to speak, and make things worse; however, if you keep within the rules of reality then it might be a bit more useful.
- GormanFletcher 5y agoI interpreted it as brainstorming ways to actively sabotage success. "Solutions" that appears superficially plausible, but undermine the outcome in real world situations. So for the dust filter, maybe selecting a material that's only rated for high temperatures in short bursts. Or one that needs frequent, labor-intensive replacements in that dangerous environment. Or test that your filter survives at high temperatures, and test the filtration efficacy, but forget to test the efficacy at high temperatures.