undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaddaon3y ago0 comments

But this ignores, as in my example, who pays for the complexity.

I want a bagel. Is it simplest for me to start tilling the land and looking for wild wheat relatives to breed, or to drive my incredibly complex car built in centuries of industrialization to the corner store and buy (using money, one of the most complex concepts we've developed!) a bagel, bring it home in a plastic (!!!) bag, and stick it in the toaster?

If I should, during my lifetime, succeed in completing a bagel with the former, I have reasonable confidence it can't be reduced further without changing the output.

But I disagree that it's the simplest way /for me/ to get breakfast.

0 comments

Zetice3y ago

I don't think the person you're replying to would consider "till the land" as fitting what they're describing as "simple".

addaonOP3y ago

It's a requirement for making a bagel… the question is whether I do it, or someone else. Part of the irreducible complexity of bagelness is the production process of wheat.

Zetice3y ago

I'm not sure how you arrived at "every single step involved must be considered" from "can't be reduced further".

If a step available to you is "buy a bagel", that's all you have to consider.

1 more reply

jacobr13y ago

It is a good way to consider the extremes of the problem-space, which often is a good way to come at a problem.

But a more practical, analogous situation might be: should I buy a nice, warm bagel at the local bagel shop, or should buy it a store and toast it myself? In that trade-off I can take for granted that I'm getting a bagel, but the delivery mechanism, the quality, the integration options, the cost, are things I need to consider.

The decision will depend upon your requirements. If you are organizing an event, maybe I get some bulk catering from the bagel-shop. If you want to use your aunt's bespoke berry jam, maybe you use the store-bought bagel so you easily can use your home spreads.

Identifying the optimal simplicity can be a hard problem, but that shouldn't preclude narrowing down choices with some rough heuristics so that you don't need to investigate the combinatorial explosion of all possibilities, or rethink the system dependencies back to: "first we have a big bang."

majkinetor3y ago

You are not producing a bagel. You are obtaining it. There is a big difference. Once nobody produces a bagel, your method is meaningless.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsaddaon3y ago0 comments

But this ignores, as in my example, who pays for the complexity.

If I should, during my lifetime, succeed in completing a bagel with the former, I have reasonable confidence it can't be reduced further without changing the output.

But I disagree that it's the simplest way /for me/ to get breakfast.

0 comments

Zetice3y ago

I don't think the person you're replying to would consider "till the land" as fitting what they're describing as "simple".

addaonOP3y ago

It's a requirement for making a bagel… the question is whether I do it, or someone else. Part of the irreducible complexity of bagelness is the production process of wheat.

Zetice3y ago

I'm not sure how you arrived at "every single step involved must be considered" from "can't be reduced further".

If a step available to you is "buy a bagel", that's all you have to consider.

1 more reply

jacobr13y ago

It is a good way to consider the extremes of the problem-space, which often is a good way to come at a problem.

majkinetor3y ago

You are not producing a bagel. You are obtaining it. There is a big difference. Once nobody produces a bagel, your method is meaningless.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse