There's an often missed distinction between the complex and the complicated. Complexity can emerge from the interaction of two (or more) simple things. Think of

There's an often missed distinction between the complex and the complicated. Complexity can emerge from the interaction of two (or more) simple things. Think of the double slit experiment[0] or Penrose's observations of quasitiles[1]. I practice and teach computation within design - mostly architecture. When talking to my students I make sure to highlight this distinction. Creating complicated things is one way to create complexity. But complexity as an outcome of carefully chosen simple ideas, techniques, or phenomena is another, arguably more powerful way. Brooks' ideas of essential and accidental complexity are precisely in line with this. Managing complex effects is itself a challenge (an exciting and rewarding one). And the more "complicated" a system, the more difficult this becomes - and exponentially so I would argue. So both in my own work and in helping students understand how to design for managing complexity but minimizing complicated-ness. I would be remiss if I didn't mention Murray Gell-Mann's notion of Plectics, which combines simplicity and complexity in one[2]. This is a really awesome subject area to explore, and I look forward to more discussions around it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3YMEamzmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3YMEamzmw [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cplx.6130010502 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cplx.613001...