I did not like this article because it was superficial, clickbaity, and did not explain the main idea with a worked out example. > Charlie inverted the problem

I did not like this article because it was superficial, clickbaity, and did not explain the main idea with a worked out example. > Charlie inverted the problem in a similar way to the TRIZ practitioners — if he wanted to kill pilots, he could get them into icy conditions whereby they couldn’t continue flying, or put them in situations where they would run out of fuel and fall into the ocean. So he drew more applicable maps and better predicted the weather factors that were relevant by keeping in mind the best ways to do the exact opposite of bringing his pilots home. This tells me nothing about how Charlie Munger avoided planes crashing. There has to be more to this than this trite summarization. Can someone shed some light on this and explain why this is insightful.