5 ms·

> It's ok to think that things have flaws or could be improved. But it's a trap to believe that solutions are trivial and everyone else is just too enfeebled of

> It's ok to think that things have flaws or could be improved. But it's a trap to believe that solutions are trivial and everyone else is just too enfeebled of character to push the miracle button. I feel this so much. I've worked on products which many people insist could be done just as well by spreadsheets. I've worked in areas which people believe are overcomplicated - which they are - and therefore could be replaced with something simple. It is never that easy. I see it all the time in other fields and I just shake my head. If you ever find yourself saying "Why don't they just..?" you almost certainly don't understand the problem.

burnished 5y ago
I agree with you, but I also kind of hate that "Why don't you just..?" has become so tainted, because it is a great question to ask if you want to learn more about the heart of the matter. What went wrong when the 'obvious' solution was tried is interesting! Or, huh, just spitballing here, I suppose one could rephrase it as "have you considered..?" to ask the same question without the implicit assumption that the task is easy and the person being asked has overlooked something/is an idiot.
- nineplay 5y ago
  The problem specifically is "just". "Why don't they use containers instead of tarballs?" is a excellent question which can help you understand a system better. "Why don't they just use containers instead of tarballs?" strongly suggests that containers are obviously superior and there must be some flaw in the system that's keeping the tarballs around.
  - burnished 5y ago
    I think you are correct, thank you for pointing that out to me.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    "Just" suggests that containers appear better for the purpose at hand from the questioner's perspective. Which is also suggested by the question being asked at all.
  - musicale 5y ago
    I think "just" is supposed to imply that the proposed solution might be simpler or easier in some way, not that it's obviously superior overall. [Of course in the case of containers vs. tarballs ... it might actually make the system more complex and more difficult to implement, use, and maintain - something which might be nice to state explicitly along with the reasons why. >;-)]
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  I agree with you that "questioning why" it generally a good thing for understanding. The issue here is one of communication, whereby the connotations of "just" may be taken differently by Asker and Responder. A Responder could take the use of "just" as implying "obvious thing you personally missed" which derides your efforts/understanding/intellect/ego. Whereas I see the use of "just" as saying something about the Askers mental model. The Asker knows their mental model says this is easy. The Asker knows you did not do [easy thing]. They want to know why there is a disparity. Anecdotally, I have been hobbying away when my wife walks in - is given a brief explanation of what I am doing - says "Why don't you just [xyz]?" She has limited information. She knows it. I know it. We both know her mental model is not like mine. But through her building it how she wants we can explore options. When she says "just" it is because her mental model says this should be easy. And sometimes I eat humble pie because it is. Because my mental model was built from scratch from a different direction and my perspective means I didn't see [easy thing]. Not often. But often enough that I appreciate every time my wife asks. Maybe the issue is who/how often you are asked the "just" question. Are you being bothered by too many people who don't-really-know/don't-really-care ? Then the Nth person coming up saying "why don't you just?" is another time/attention sapping interaction.
- tehnub 5y ago
  Post from a little while back where someone really really thought this through. IIRC, they concluded that there's no good way to ask it, lol. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21675717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21675717
- jeffffff 5y ago
  i like to phrase this sort of question as "i'm assuming you considered this simpler solution, why was that not sufficient?" sometimes the answer is that they didn't consider it and now feel dumb for not thinking of it, but i've never seen anyone get defensive or offended or upset when phrasing it that way.
rnoorda 5y ago
> I see it all the time in other fields and I just shake my head. If you ever find yourself saying "Why don't they just..?" you almost certainly don't understand the problem. A political corollary to this that I enjoy came from an old professor of mine- "If your political opinions require large amounts of people to be stupid or evil, you don't understand the issues well enough." (A rough quote, I don't remember exact phrasing.)
- nineplay 5y ago
  I wish that was the banner at the top of every political discussion forum. Maybe with some auto-flagging on posts which can be condensed down to "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" The world would be a better place.
- codeisawesome 5y ago
  Hmm. But isn’t there some merit to the idea that groups of people behave differently when put together vs. how they would act individually?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  this seems to discount historically known political movements in which almost everyone involved, with the benefit of hindsight, was obviously stupid or evil. Probably these are outliers, so also probably your professor's quote fits well enough most of the time, and only some of the time returns false when it should return true.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Usually those movements intend to remove "evil" people. "We weren't evil, how can attacking evil people be evil?" You can see people say things like this even today. The evil in these cases was done by the people convincing the masses that the other group really is evil and needs to be attacked, not by the masses. The masses will attack and punish whatever they think is evil, everyone knows that, doesn't mean that they are evil, rather it is always evil to label large groups of people as evil since it encourages the masses to attack those.
TeeMassive 5y ago
https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
dehrmann 5y ago
The other side of this is that kids don't know what's impossible yet.
anotherevan 5y ago
Isn't that the same people who say, "I could write that in a weekend..."?

burnished 5y ago

I agree with you, but I also kind of hate that "Why don't you just..?" has become so tainted, because it is a great question to ask if you want to learn more about the heart of the matter. What went wrong when the 'obvious' solution was tried is interesting! Or, huh, just spitballing here, I suppose one could rephrase it as "have you considered..?" to ask the same question without the implicit assumption that the task is easy and the person being asked has overlooked something/is an idiot.

nineplay 5y ago
The problem specifically is "just". "Why don't they use containers instead of tarballs?" is a excellent question which can help you understand a system better. "Why don't they just use containers instead of tarballs?" strongly suggests that containers are obviously superior and there must be some flaw in the system that's keeping the tarballs around.
- burnished 5y ago
  I think you are correct, thank you for pointing that out to me.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  "Just" suggests that containers appear better for the purpose at hand from the questioner's perspective. Which is also suggested by the question being asked at all.
- musicale 5y ago
  I think "just" is supposed to imply that the proposed solution might be simpler or easier in some way, not that it's obviously superior overall. [Of course in the case of containers vs. tarballs ... it might actually make the system more complex and more difficult to implement, use, and maintain - something which might be nice to state explicitly along with the reasons why. >;-)]
_carbyau_ 5y ago
I agree with you that "questioning why" it generally a good thing for understanding. The issue here is one of communication, whereby the connotations of "just" may be taken differently by Asker and Responder. A Responder could take the use of "just" as implying "obvious thing you personally missed" which derides your efforts/understanding/intellect/ego. Whereas I see the use of "just" as saying something about the Askers mental model. The Asker knows their mental model says this is easy. The Asker knows you did not do [easy thing]. They want to know why there is a disparity. Anecdotally, I have been hobbying away when my wife walks in - is given a brief explanation of what I am doing - says "Why don't you just [xyz]?" She has limited information. She knows it. I know it. We both know her mental model is not like mine. But through her building it how she wants we can explore options. When she says "just" it is because her mental model says this should be easy. And sometimes I eat humble pie because it is. Because my mental model was built from scratch from a different direction and my perspective means I didn't see [easy thing]. Not often. But often enough that I appreciate every time my wife asks. Maybe the issue is who/how often you are asked the "just" question. Are you being bothered by too many people who don't-really-know/don't-really-care ? Then the Nth person coming up saying "why don't you just?" is another time/attention sapping interaction.
tehnub 5y ago
Post from a little while back where someone really really thought this through. IIRC, they concluded that there's no good way to ask it, lol. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21675717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21675717
jeffffff 5y ago
i like to phrase this sort of question as "i'm assuming you considered this simpler solution, why was that not sufficient?" sometimes the answer is that they didn't consider it and now feel dumb for not thinking of it, but i've never seen anyone get defensive or offended or upset when phrasing it that way.

rnoorda 5y ago

> I see it all the time in other fields and I just shake my head. If you ever find yourself saying "Why don't they just..?" you almost certainly don't understand the problem. A political corollary to this that I enjoy came from an old professor of mine- "If your political opinions require large amounts of people to be stupid or evil, you don't understand the issues well enough." (A rough quote, I don't remember exact phrasing.)

nineplay 5y ago
I wish that was the banner at the top of every political discussion forum. Maybe with some auto-flagging on posts which can be condensed down to "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" The world would be a better place.
codeisawesome 5y ago
Hmm. But isn’t there some merit to the idea that groups of people behave differently when put together vs. how they would act individually?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
this seems to discount historically known political movements in which almost everyone involved, with the benefit of hindsight, was obviously stupid or evil. Probably these are outliers, so also probably your professor's quote fits well enough most of the time, and only some of the time returns false when it should return true.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Usually those movements intend to remove "evil" people. "We weren't evil, how can attacking evil people be evil?" You can see people say things like this even today. The evil in these cases was done by the people convincing the masses that the other group really is evil and needs to be attacked, not by the masses. The masses will attack and punish whatever they think is evil, everyone knows that, doesn't mean that they are evil, rather it is always evil to label large groups of people as evil since it encourages the masses to attack those.

TeeMassive 5y ago

https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/

dehrmann 5y ago

The other side of this is that kids don't know what's impossible yet.

anotherevan 5y ago

Isn't that the same people who say, "I could write that in a weekend..."?