5 ms·

I think that’s the problem with the article - that it sticks to its guns. It starts with an outrageous statement, goes on to show that it’s actually correct. T

I think that’s the problem with the article - that it sticks to its guns. It starts with an outrageous statement, goes on to show that it’s actually correct. Then it relates it to similar things and instead of saying “yeah, just like we floor years and hours it makes sense to do it for minutes too, but it was fun to think about” it goes on to say “but for minutes this is bad” If it had backtracked and said “flooring is actually the better choice” I would have appreciated the article as a whole much more

atoav 2y ago
It seems to me many people are so amazed by the fact they for once had an original thought that at this moment they stop caring whether it is actually a good one. It is crucial to maintain mental flexibility and one does that by thinking things through, killing your darlings, admitting when ideas are wrong or simply just mediocre. Only because it was me who had an idea doesn't mean I have to defend it at all cost. The idea isn't me.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  I am sure this is not an original thought.
  - atoav 2y ago
    I could have phrased it as "convinced themselves they had an original thought" but that sounded too cynical even for me.
  - prerok 2y ago
    It may have been for them.
- circlefavshape 2y ago
  One of the big downsides of the internet is the cold water it constantly pours on my idea of my own originality. Every time I think of a great idea I find someone else has already thought of it (well, almost every time)
  - chii 2y ago
    > Every time I think of a great idea I find someone else has already thought of it that's because an idea's greatness does not come from the creator, but from the other people affected by the idea. And most ideas dont affect anyone.
  - Jerrrry 2y ago
    Originality does not exist, humans are not capable of purely original thought. Closest you can get are unique sentences.
    - circlefavshape 2y ago
      If this was true then we would all be thought-free, unless every thought a human has thunk originally came from our non-human ancestors
      - Jerrrry 2y ago
        Collective (un)concious, yes. There is no parallel chains of unconnected thought. We are barely, rarely more than the sum of our parts on average. We have very convincing illusions of free will though - like the apparent exhibition of agency.
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    That does not make it a etter or worse idea though. Realistically, most people will only ever have ideas that someone else somewhere else will already have had. Does that mean, that the idea is commonly known? Not necessarily. It is also still an original idea in terms of you having thought, that was not easily derived from what you know (but probably somehow derived, like all thought likely is).
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  I have been staring at this comment for over 2 hours. It is brilliant on so many levels... During that first hour, two people DMed me, and said a couple of my practices are genius. I think that this is one of the very most important ideas I have ever read on YC: "It is crucial to maintain mental flexibility and one does that by thinking things through."
  - atoav 2y ago
    Quite a compliment, thanks. I learned this approach in industrial design school, where you're surrounded by a whole class of other people who also have their own ideas. You sketch your ideas and there is a real danger of falling in love with something too quickly and cramping to push it through. And then you realize, it only looked good on paper, or only looked good to you, or to were mistaken about its functionality, proportions, readability or whatnot. Those who want to create great things cannot afford to fall into love with them. You can fall into love with a particular problem or question, but not with a specific solution, especially not if you came up with it.
fouronnes3 2y ago
Thanks for the feedback. I agree this is how I should have ended the article. If anything, the most important thing with conventions is that we all follow the same ones. So in the end I'm obviously not gonna move all my clocks forward by 30 seconds. This is just how I decided to write the article, but I concede I should have made the tongue-in-cheek tone more explicit.
- mosselman 2y ago
  You can still change the ending. It is your article and right now quite a few people will have read it, but if you keep it live for years many more will probably get to read it and there is no reason why you should keep some first version of it online if you think it should’ve been different. You wouldn’t leave a v1 of an app online just because it is first
snowfarthing 2y ago
What I don't get is how he says "we think of year and month as intervals, but it doesn't make sense to think of minutes as intervals" -- and I can't help but wonder "why not?" When we say something happened at 1:35pm, we really mean it happened somewhere on or after 1:35:00pm and before 1:36:00pm. Why is this any less natural than saying "it happened in 2007" or "it happened in July"? One of the things that intrigues me about Google's Plus Code addressing system is how it converts longitude and lattitude into "area block intervals" -- the first four digits represent a large area, the next four + three represent a small area, and if you know the large area, you can specify only the latter seven, or if the area is big enough, you could ignore the last three digits after +, or if you're talking about a ranch or a campground, you could even specify just the last three digits. The first four are analogous to "year", the second four to "month", and the last three to "day". This can even be continued into smaller and smaller intervals, just as we can divide a "day" into "hours" and "minutes" and "seconds" and so forth, we can specify smaller and smaller areas with plus codes.

atoav 2y ago

It seems to me many people are so amazed by the fact they for once had an original thought that at this moment they stop caring whether it is actually a good one. It is crucial to maintain mental flexibility and one does that by thinking things through, killing your darlings, admitting when ideas are wrong or simply just mediocre. Only because it was me who had an idea doesn't mean I have to defend it at all cost. The idea isn't me.

teaearlgraycold 2y ago
I am sure this is not an original thought.
- atoav 2y ago
  I could have phrased it as "convinced themselves they had an original thought" but that sounded too cynical even for me.
- prerok 2y ago
  It may have been for them.
circlefavshape 2y ago
One of the big downsides of the internet is the cold water it constantly pours on my idea of my own originality. Every time I think of a great idea I find someone else has already thought of it (well, almost every time)
- chii 2y ago
  > Every time I think of a great idea I find someone else has already thought of it that's because an idea's greatness does not come from the creator, but from the other people affected by the idea. And most ideas dont affect anyone.
- Jerrrry 2y ago
  Originality does not exist, humans are not capable of purely original thought. Closest you can get are unique sentences.
  - circlefavshape 2y ago
    If this was true then we would all be thought-free, unless every thought a human has thunk originally came from our non-human ancestors
    - Jerrrry 2y ago
      Collective (un)concious, yes. There is no parallel chains of unconnected thought. We are barely, rarely more than the sum of our parts on average. We have very convincing illusions of free will though - like the apparent exhibition of agency.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  That does not make it a etter or worse idea though. Realistically, most people will only ever have ideas that someone else somewhere else will already have had. Does that mean, that the idea is commonly known? Not necessarily. It is also still an original idea in terms of you having thought, that was not easily derived from what you know (but probably somehow derived, like all thought likely is).
ForOldHack 2y ago
I have been staring at this comment for over 2 hours. It is brilliant on so many levels... During that first hour, two people DMed me, and said a couple of my practices are genius. I think that this is one of the very most important ideas I have ever read on YC: "It is crucial to maintain mental flexibility and one does that by thinking things through."
- atoav 2y ago
  Quite a compliment, thanks. I learned this approach in industrial design school, where you're surrounded by a whole class of other people who also have their own ideas. You sketch your ideas and there is a real danger of falling in love with something too quickly and cramping to push it through. And then you realize, it only looked good on paper, or only looked good to you, or to were mistaken about its functionality, proportions, readability or whatnot. Those who want to create great things cannot afford to fall into love with them. You can fall into love with a particular problem or question, but not with a specific solution, especially not if you came up with it.

fouronnes3 2y ago

Thanks for the feedback. I agree this is how I should have ended the article. If anything, the most important thing with conventions is that we all follow the same ones. So in the end I'm obviously not gonna move all my clocks forward by 30 seconds. This is just how I decided to write the article, but I concede I should have made the tongue-in-cheek tone more explicit.

mosselman 2y ago
You can still change the ending. It is your article and right now quite a few people will have read it, but if you keep it live for years many more will probably get to read it and there is no reason why you should keep some first version of it online if you think it should’ve been different. You wouldn’t leave a v1 of an app online just because it is first

snowfarthing 2y ago

What I don't get is how he says "we think of year and month as intervals, but it doesn't make sense to think of minutes as intervals" -- and I can't help but wonder "why not?" When we say something happened at 1:35pm, we really mean it happened somewhere on or after 1:35:00pm and before 1:36:00pm. Why is this any less natural than saying "it happened in 2007" or "it happened in July"? One of the things that intrigues me about Google's Plus Code addressing system is how it converts longitude and lattitude into "area block intervals" -- the first four digits represent a large area, the next four + three represent a small area, and if you know the large area, you can specify only the latter seven, or if the area is big enough, you could ignore the last three digits after +, or if you're talking about a ranch or a campground, you could even specify just the last three digits. The first four are analogous to "year", the second four to "month", and the last three to "day". This can even be continued into smaller and smaller intervals, just as we can divide a "day" into "hours" and "minutes" and "seconds" and so forth, we can specify smaller and smaller areas with plus codes.