2 ms·
You can argue all you want. Giving up on simplicity and accepting complexity seems like a natural thing to do for landing on Moon, no ? No amount of "lets make
by majkinetor 5y ago
You can argue all you want. Giving up on simplicity and accepting complexity seems like a natural thing to do for landing on Moon, no ? No amount of "lets make it simple and just jump really high" will do that.
Lets live in real world, you can't dummy out everything.
The term is wicked problem - it depends on a lot of stakeholders, many of which already in the comfort zone, and you can't change shit without having a major storm.
- onion2k 5y agoNo amount of "lets make it simple and just jump really high" will do that. You're confusing "simple" with "easy". Simple things are often extremely hard. The moon landings are a great example - everything about the Apollo lander was as simple as possible. The reason why the inside of the capsule was covered in buttons and switches was that there was pretty much one button for each process. The astronauts followed simple "1 2 3" processes to do each task. The UI could have been a much cleaner, but more complex, set of steps with contextually aware buttons, but that would have made it far more prone to failure. Instead the mission designers decided to use a simpler, safer approach even though that was harder to actually build. Simple is the opposite of complicated. It is not the opposite of hard.