5 ms·

You're talking about an industry that's unwilling to spend $10 to vaccinate herd animals. > Please consider being less hasty to dismiss unconventional thinking

You're talking about an industry that's unwilling to spend $10 to vaccinate herd animals. > Please consider being less hasty to dismiss unconventional thinking. Let’s keep HN weird thinking friend? Friend you're approaching a problem you know nothing about and complaining about being dismissed... by someone who took the time to explain why your tenuously informed idea will never work.

happytiger 3y ago
Disappointing response. Don’t make generalizations or confuse explorative questions for broad naïveté. The issue I take with your approach here is that you’re focused on making the other person feel wrong, on the wrong path and assuming they know nothing (implied: idiot) rather than exploring ideas and solutions to novel problems. That’s a common pattern in the world (ad hominem), but it doesn’t do much in innovation circles or have much of a place in early stage innovation practice. I have a fair amount of experience in ag, and ag insurance, but not predator collars. I’m cool with being downvoted for having an unpopular idea but please be more conscious: not everyone would speak up to your behavior and it’s quite unnecessary. Try to attack what’s wrong with the idea not the person. You are literally on here telling me that my ideas will never work. It’s a lot cliché and not just a little bit hilarious. Don’t do it. Haha.* I’m ok being dumb when exploring ideas, and that’s actually ok. Or it should be. At least on HN.
- zztop44 3y ago
  Your comment looks a lot like a common trope on this site: people encountering a problem they know little about, thinking for 20 seconds, and saying “You could just…” And that’s annoying because it’s arrogant and it invalidates people who have dedicated their lives and careers to that work. But rereading your initial comment, I think it was actually framed as invitation for discussion rather than an “obvious simple solution”. Don’t let it worry you too much. Sometimes shit just gets downvoted!
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Thanks for this. I am not always full of grace and poise when exploring stuff, as I find it counterproductive to real exploration. People love to just rip you down when you ask why: it’s got to be fundamental to something in human evolution. Nothing pisses some people off than questioning the status quo. But I’d much rather put one a flame retarding suite and ask basic first-principle style questions and get assumed to be an idiot but actually learn something than try to look smart. Probably because I’m not smart. I’d also assume that a lot of what’s been done already is smart, but often the incentives aren’t aligned to put something into implementation or regulation keeps smart solutions from progressing to viability. There’s something in almost every market that’s not moving forward just due to poor regulation or mis or under considered incentive misalignment. I’ve done a lot of work in ag and know something about the insurance side but not much on predator mitigation, but it seems like an area where we could really improve. I don’t believe every innovation worth making in the space is already done so we should keep exploring. Thanks for understanding the spirit of it.

happytiger 3y ago

Disappointing response. Don’t make generalizations or confuse explorative questions for broad naïveté. The issue I take with your approach here is that you’re focused on making the other person feel wrong, on the wrong path and assuming they know nothing (implied: idiot) rather than exploring ideas and solutions to novel problems. That’s a common pattern in the world (ad hominem), but it doesn’t do much in innovation circles or have much of a place in early stage innovation practice. I have a fair amount of experience in ag, and ag insurance, but not predator collars. I’m cool with being downvoted for having an unpopular idea but please be more conscious: not everyone would speak up to your behavior and it’s quite unnecessary. Try to attack what’s wrong with the idea not the person. You are literally on here telling me that my ideas will never work. It’s a lot cliché and not just a little bit hilarious. Don’t do it. Haha.* I’m ok being dumb when exploring ideas, and that’s actually ok. Or it should be. At least on HN.

zztop44 3y ago
Your comment looks a lot like a common trope on this site: people encountering a problem they know little about, thinking for 20 seconds, and saying “You could just…” And that’s annoying because it’s arrogant and it invalidates people who have dedicated their lives and careers to that work. But rereading your initial comment, I think it was actually framed as invitation for discussion rather than an “obvious simple solution”. Don’t let it worry you too much. Sometimes shit just gets downvoted!
- happytiger 3y ago
  Thanks for this. I am not always full of grace and poise when exploring stuff, as I find it counterproductive to real exploration. People love to just rip you down when you ask why: it’s got to be fundamental to something in human evolution. Nothing pisses some people off than questioning the status quo. But I’d much rather put one a flame retarding suite and ask basic first-principle style questions and get assumed to be an idiot but actually learn something than try to look smart. Probably because I’m not smart. I’d also assume that a lot of what’s been done already is smart, but often the incentives aren’t aligned to put something into implementation or regulation keeps smart solutions from progressing to viability. There’s something in almost every market that’s not moving forward just due to poor regulation or mis or under considered incentive misalignment. I’ve done a lot of work in ag and know something about the insurance side but not much on predator mitigation, but it seems like an area where we could really improve. I don’t believe every innovation worth making in the space is already done so we should keep exploring. Thanks for understanding the spirit of it.