6 ms·

This seems to echo what Richard Hamming says in "You and your research". He recounts how his fellow scientists were working on unimportant problems in their fie

by iamwil 12y ago

This seems to echo what Richard Hamming says in "You and your research". He recounts how his fellow scientists were working on unimportant problems in their field. The judgement of unimportant came not from Hamming, but from the fellow scientists when he asked them "What's the most important problem in your field right now?" His subsequent question was, "How come you're not working on it?" He says that didn't earn him many friends. By "important", I had also mistakenly thought that he meant "grandiose". But in fact, he later defines "important problems" as "problems that you have a reasonable angle of attack to solve". Some problems just aren't yet ripe, until all the pieces to solve it come together. Which makes the question, "Why now?" a very good question to answer when contemplating what problem is important. When someone writes about how Silicon Valley is working on worthless problems, like photo sharing app, or the Yo app, or twitter--or when Groupon was on the up, and it seems like there were lots of daily deal sites, it makes me think of this. I wonder if they take into account that some problems that are considered worthwhile in their eyes simply aren't ripe to be solved yet.

javajosh 12y ago
I think it's useful to distinguish between "kinds of problems". The problem of understanding friction between two polished surfaces is a different category of problem from that solved by Yo or Groupon. The payoff of the former is the satisfaction of curiosity, and, arguably, an irreversible advancement of human knowledge. The payoff of the latter is, at best, a small improvement in utility of a small percent of humans over a relatively short amount of time. The dirty little secret of the valley is that (most) people don't care about this distinction. There are plenty of people made rich by AOL buyouts and MySpace acquisitions - and they are just as rich even though their creations didn't last. There is a tacit acceptance of the truth that technology is fashion, not science. Why is this distinction important to your point? Because "ripe to be solved" takes on a very different character in the fashion technology sense and the science technology sense. Indeed, I'm not sure it can even be applied to fashion technology like "Yo" since the elements of success are entirely self-referential, as with all fashionable things. Or do you think "Yo" was really just waiting for TCP/IP and Objective C and the iPhone etc. before it could be "realized"?
- iamwil 12y ago
  For any product in the marketplace, the "Why now?" question isn't just asking what technological tools and breakthroughs have taken place that makes this possible. You must also ask, what user behaviors and markets now exist that makes this possible. In order for a product to be a adopted by many, you need both, regardless of whether it's a "science technology" or a "fashion technology". Many people focus on the former effect as being innovation while completely disregarding the latter. Some progression in products can only occur when users have changed their behavior and expectations enough for you to leverage it. We had the technology to make something like AirBnb since the 90's. But I don't think it would have worked in the 90's, because people were still wary of meeting strangers from the internet. We had the technology to make Groupon since the 90's. But I don't think it would have worked in the 90's, because people were only starting to get use to the idea of paying for stuff online, much less doing it together with strangers. This is why at some points in time, Silicon Valley focuses on problems that can be solved because the user behavior had changed, rather than on problems that can be solved because there's a tech breakthrough--sometimes there are no new tech breakthroughs to be leveraged. That's when you get the Twitter, Groupons, and Yos, and that's ok! It's like filling in the gaps, and fully exploring the ramifications of a new tech.
scythe 12y ago
>"Why now?" This note might deserve a little more emphasis. It's routine in history that problems are solved only once the tools become available, which is supported by a stunning list of coinciding discoveries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries Fermat's last theorem was an open problem for some 400 years, but was solved within two decades (1993) after the introduction of the Frey curve (1975).
WalterBright 12y ago
It's why I started working on the D programming language. I figured I only had so many productive years left, and what was I going to spend them on? I wanted to do something that mattered.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Is it a good idea to go through life thinking you're going to spend the rest of it doing inconsequential things in just a few short years? Ken Thompson seems to have stayed productive. So has pg. Maybe people stop being productive because they start to buy into the idea that they can't be.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    My dad's health is stopping him. You can't run forever, that's just how it is. Edit, that said, I haven't seen him as active or motivated in years before his latest contract gig.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      I didn't mean "all people." Of course health problems are going to stop someone. But it seems like most people just give up and transition into other work even though there's nothing stopping them from pursuing something they feel is important.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - iamwil 12y ago
    "But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems. When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards." excerpt from You and your research by Richard Hamming

by iamwil 12y ago

javajosh 12y ago

I think it's useful to distinguish between "kinds of problems". The problem of understanding friction between two polished surfaces is a different category of problem from that solved by Yo or Groupon. The payoff of the former is the satisfaction of curiosity, and, arguably, an irreversible advancement of human knowledge. The payoff of the latter is, at best, a small improvement in utility of a small percent of humans over a relatively short amount of time. The dirty little secret of the valley is that (most) people don't care about this distinction. There are plenty of people made rich by AOL buyouts and MySpace acquisitions - and they are just as rich even though their creations didn't last. There is a tacit acceptance of the truth that technology is fashion, not science. Why is this distinction important to your point? Because "ripe to be solved" takes on a very different character in the fashion technology sense and the science technology sense. Indeed, I'm not sure it can even be applied to fashion technology like "Yo" since the elements of success are entirely self-referential, as with all fashionable things. Or do you think "Yo" was really just waiting for TCP/IP and Objective C and the iPhone etc. before it could be "realized"?

iamwil 12y ago
For any product in the marketplace, the "Why now?" question isn't just asking what technological tools and breakthroughs have taken place that makes this possible. You must also ask, what user behaviors and markets now exist that makes this possible. In order for a product to be a adopted by many, you need both, regardless of whether it's a "science technology" or a "fashion technology". Many people focus on the former effect as being innovation while completely disregarding the latter. Some progression in products can only occur when users have changed their behavior and expectations enough for you to leverage it. We had the technology to make something like AirBnb since the 90's. But I don't think it would have worked in the 90's, because people were still wary of meeting strangers from the internet. We had the technology to make Groupon since the 90's. But I don't think it would have worked in the 90's, because people were only starting to get use to the idea of paying for stuff online, much less doing it together with strangers. This is why at some points in time, Silicon Valley focuses on problems that can be solved because the user behavior had changed, rather than on problems that can be solved because there's a tech breakthrough--sometimes there are no new tech breakthroughs to be leveraged. That's when you get the Twitter, Groupons, and Yos, and that's ok! It's like filling in the gaps, and fully exploring the ramifications of a new tech.

scythe 12y ago

>"Why now?" This note might deserve a little more emphasis. It's routine in history that problems are solved only once the tools become available, which is supported by a stunning list of coinciding discoveries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries Fermat's last theorem was an open problem for some 400 years, but was solved within two decades (1993) after the introduction of the Frey curve (1975).

WalterBright 12y ago

It's why I started working on the D programming language. I figured I only had so many productive years left, and what was I going to spend them on? I wanted to do something that mattered.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Is it a good idea to go through life thinking you're going to spend the rest of it doing inconsequential things in just a few short years? Ken Thompson seems to have stayed productive. So has pg. Maybe people stop being productive because they start to buy into the idea that they can't be.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  My dad's health is stopping him. You can't run forever, that's just how it is. Edit, that said, I haven't seen him as active or motivated in years before his latest contract gig.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I didn't mean "all people." Of course health problems are going to stop someone. But it seems like most people just give up and transition into other work even though there's nothing stopping them from pursuing something they feel is important.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- iamwil 12y ago
  "But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems. When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards." excerpt from You and your research by Richard Hamming