4 ms·

> Well turns out the paper is from 2023 or newer, so that could explain why. TFA and the paper both wonder why this extremely simple algorithm was not discover

> Well turns out the paper is from 2023 or newer, so that could explain why. TFA and the paper both wonder why this extremely simple algorithm was not discovered sooner. Both posit that no paper should be prerequisite to applying this modification. The question in TFA is less about the paper and more about the concept -- is there some reason why this has evaded us? Is it too good to be true? The article does a better job than the paper digging in to the details IMO.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Asking why humanity didn't invent an invention earlier, given that we had all the prerequisites, is kind of a banal question. Why didn't we invent cars sooner? Why didn't we invent the internet sooner? We had all the prerequisites, or else they wouldn't have been invented. Why didn't we invent them faster? The answer to all these questions is that having the prerequisites for inventing something doesn't mean we instantly invent that thing, a la Sid Meier's Civilization. The expectation that we would is actually what's kind of odd here. Humans doesn't even all share the same info, much less automatically know all the possibilities of all combinations of all humanity's knowledge. Another factor might be that Yet Another Eviction Algorithm isn't necessarily one of humanity's top focuses for inventions at the moment. We could ask any of us here on HN, for example, why we didn't think of it, and sooner. The answer is likely that we were all working on something else we found more important than YAEA.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  That banal question is in the original paper. The paper spends significant time explaining that this because this is such a simple modification they find it difficult to believe it's been overlooked until now. The article's question "why aren't we SIEVE-ing?" follows this theme. No one is asking the equivalent of "why didn't we invent cars sooner?" here.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I don't doubt that the banal question in question, is in the original paper. My point was how banal the question was, and how easily answered it is, not where it was. Many inventions in humanity were "simple modifications" of other things. Why didn't we invent them sooner? The answer is in the post you replied to: because it's totally normal for "obvious" inventions to not be invented for a long time, even when somebody thinks, after the fact, that it's a "simple modification". Indeed, what percentage of humanity is currently searching for Yet Another Eviction Algorithm, and what percentage of that percentage is looking in this direction, instead of one of the hundreds of other directions? So yes, the question is indeed equivalent to "why didn't we invent [X] sooner", replacing X with any invention that at least 1 person out of billions in the world finds "obvious" or a "simple modification".
    - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
      Not everything is an invention. Do you have any routines that you've refined over the years? Is every step you take in a routine something you were taught or learned elsewhere? Or did you "invent" part of it yourself? I know how to make tea or coffee. Should someone take the credit for the fact that I know to start boiling water first, while I get everything else together, because this results in the most efficient use of my time? My perception of the paper is this analogy isn't too far off. It's not an invention, it's a discovery.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Perhaps not everything is an invention, but I think everything we're talking about here is, including algorithms. In any case, that's just semantics: you can call it a "discovery" if you feel better about it, perhaps even run s/invention/discovery/g on my post. The points therein still stand: [inventions/discoveries] which at least 1 person in the world thinks (after the fact) are obvious and just a "small modification" of other [inventions/discoveries], usually go [uninvented/undiscovered] for quite some time. The paper and TFA asks, "why?" But the better question is, "why wouldn't they?" There's no reason to think they would be be immediately [invented/discovered] as soon as all the prerequisites are [invented/discovered] (again, even if someone thinks they're similar), for the reasons described in my above posts.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  Or: why did we invent X so early, far earlier in history than seems logical given the "tech tree" view we get from sim games? The fax machine and the electric car come to mind.
  - Aardwolf 3y ago
    Electrical car makes sense to me, when cars were new all kinds of propulsion methods were attempted, eventually one dominant technology gained traction. The electric printing telegraph in 1848 though, that's amazing!

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Asking why humanity didn't invent an invention earlier, given that we had all the prerequisites, is kind of a banal question. Why didn't we invent cars sooner? Why didn't we invent the internet sooner? We had all the prerequisites, or else they wouldn't have been invented. Why didn't we invent them faster? The answer to all these questions is that having the prerequisites for inventing something doesn't mean we instantly invent that thing, a la Sid Meier's Civilization. The expectation that we would is actually what's kind of odd here. Humans doesn't even all share the same info, much less automatically know all the possibilities of all combinations of all humanity's knowledge. Another factor might be that Yet Another Eviction Algorithm isn't necessarily one of humanity's top focuses for inventions at the moment. We could ask any of us here on HN, for example, why we didn't think of it, and sooner. The answer is likely that we were all working on something else we found more important than YAEA.

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
That banal question is in the original paper. The paper spends significant time explaining that this because this is such a simple modification they find it difficult to believe it's been overlooked until now. The article's question "why aren't we SIEVE-ing?" follows this theme. No one is asking the equivalent of "why didn't we invent cars sooner?" here.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I don't doubt that the banal question in question, is in the original paper. My point was how banal the question was, and how easily answered it is, not where it was. Many inventions in humanity were "simple modifications" of other things. Why didn't we invent them sooner? The answer is in the post you replied to: because it's totally normal for "obvious" inventions to not be invented for a long time, even when somebody thinks, after the fact, that it's a "simple modification". Indeed, what percentage of humanity is currently searching for Yet Another Eviction Algorithm, and what percentage of that percentage is looking in this direction, instead of one of the hundreds of other directions? So yes, the question is indeed equivalent to "why didn't we invent [X] sooner", replacing X with any invention that at least 1 person out of billions in the world finds "obvious" or a "simple modification".
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    Not everything is an invention. Do you have any routines that you've refined over the years? Is every step you take in a routine something you were taught or learned elsewhere? Or did you "invent" part of it yourself? I know how to make tea or coffee. Should someone take the credit for the fact that I know to start boiling water first, while I get everything else together, because this results in the most efficient use of my time? My perception of the paper is this analogy isn't too far off. It's not an invention, it's a discovery.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      Perhaps not everything is an invention, but I think everything we're talking about here is, including algorithms. In any case, that's just semantics: you can call it a "discovery" if you feel better about it, perhaps even run s/invention/discovery/g on my post. The points therein still stand: [inventions/discoveries] which at least 1 person in the world thinks (after the fact) are obvious and just a "small modification" of other [inventions/discoveries], usually go [uninvented/undiscovered] for quite some time. The paper and TFA asks, "why?" But the better question is, "why wouldn't they?" There's no reason to think they would be be immediately [invented/discovered] as soon as all the prerequisites are [invented/discovered] (again, even if someone thinks they're similar), for the reasons described in my above posts.
shermantanktop 3y ago
Or: why did we invent X so early, far earlier in history than seems logical given the "tech tree" view we get from sim games? The fax machine and the electric car come to mind.
- Aardwolf 3y ago
  Electrical car makes sense to me, when cars were new all kinds of propulsion methods were attempted, eventually one dominant technology gained traction. The electric printing telegraph in 1848 though, that's amazing!