Work on unimportant problems
yosefk.com
yosefk.com
Our best guess may be wrong, as the future is hard to predict. But the future is not so unpredictable that we should stop thinking about where best to direct our efforts.
Maybe someone working on Farmville will cause an important advance, as an unpredictable side effect. We can't rule that out. Even a job that seems 'unimportant' can have beneficial and unpredictable windfalls, and that's wonderful.
But we should still try and direct our efforts as best we can, and work on problems that we think are important.
That seemingly trivial pursuits sometimes bear fruit, doesn't mean that all pursuits are equally worthwhile.
I rather like the idea of small changes that result in cognitive shifts. An article I read a while ago said that Lisp programmers are often unimpressed with language features other people have because Lisp can easily emulate and subsume them, essentially dismissing the idea for its technical simplicity and not an actual lack of merit.
I'm not a big web guy, but a lot of web tools seem to work that way - easy to think up, easy to code up, but once they're actually available they change the game in subtle ways. There's a mindset where people (myself included) say "Well, that's easy enough to hack up using cron and ssh and..." and we fail to recognise that actually having it makes us use it, and actually using it improves our lives.
The power of vast, organic, ecological systems like markets and large open source communities, is that we can work on all problems simultaneously. This is immensely powerful and it also allows network effects of problem solving, such as those side effects mentioned in the article. If nobody was working on the things that required big parallel clusters, then the advancements in GPU technologies would matter not a bit to solving these problems.
I don't think we need to worry about how important the problems we are trying to solve are. I think the best approach is to work on solving the problems that inspire us. I think, as the Spartan prince once said (according to Plutarch), "People raise positions, not the other way around."
The article is still relevant though, in my mind. There's no external motivation to write a parser. But how else could one reasonably build a research database? I suppose someone could manually go through the clinical database and transfer info into a research database for 500 patients. But what about the next 10 studies of 500 patients? It seems unimportant in the near term, but in the long-term having someone on the project who can talk to the computer is going to make or break it.
This makes it obvious there's an unstated assumption at work here, though, i.e. that the unimportant work plays a significant part in developing this technology. I don't think this is necessarily true: the opposite premise, that "it's GPUs time when it's GPUs time", seems equally plausible.
In my experience, the big problems need "small" solutions. I got well by gradually walking away from the hard hitting drugs whose overwhelming strength hit my body just as hard as it hit my medical problems. The pursuit of the hard hitting solutions strikes me as rooted in fear and reflective of inelegant mental models.
"I love Lucy" was the "Star Wars" of its day in terms of revolutionizing an industry. I suspect it also helped combat racism in this country. Lucille Ball was originally told they would not cast her Cuban husband in the role, that no one would believe that. I think they took the show on the road to build their case that audiences would accept it and she did eventually get her way.
Did she set out to change an industry or combat racism? No. She wanted her husband on the show to try to save her marriage and finally have kids. This industry changing TV show was a lifestyle business. They did finally have kids but ultimately divorced.
Having "cured CF" (so to speak) and mostly gotten spat on by the world for trying to share such info, my hope is that I can eventually do a web comic. I think humor is a far more palatable means to share wisdom than trying to "help" people. Solving serious problems that run deep tends to be too threatening to people. Entertaining them, making them laugh and incidentally causing them to think seems to be a more powerful and effective means to really change minds.
I continue to wrestle with such questions. But I think the most elegant solutions make light of problems. I only hope I can resolve my problems well enough so I only need worry about "unimportant" problems. That would be a truly amazing accomplishment given my history (and genetic disorder).
I thought I'd take the opportunity to reply to my initial opinion of your message. Your problem is that your message reads a lot like "I cured a horrible disease (I don't know what you had), which modern medicine failed to cure, by eating at good restaurants".
Your problem is that this message sounds very close to the anti-modern medicine claims of groups like homeopaths. I do not know what your cure is, but trying to work with, rather than (apparently) against modern science-based medicine might help.
Apologises if this message just ends up telling you nothing, or something you have heard too many time before.
I struggle with how to talk about what I have done. There is a substantial difference between my framing of the problem and the way others frame it. I did mention my condition but only in shorthand. I have CF -- cystic fibrosis -- a deadly genetic disorder which accounts for around a third of all adult lung transplants and half of all pediatric lung transplants in the US.
What I found is that life is chemistry. Everything we eat, drink, breathe or touch impacts our biochemistry and what germs we are exposed to and so on. Making many small choices throughout the day has a cumulative impact on body chemistry. I was able to reverse the pathology of my condition and make my body work closer to normal. Dietary changes were a big part of that but far from "everything".
Getting myself well took everything I had. I ended up deeply in debt because of it. I am currently homeless, trying to declare bankruptcy and trying to figure how to make money online so I can stay well. Having a desk job in an industrial park was part of what was keeping me ill.
Anyway, I hope that is a little clearer for you. My real message was intended to be that taking care of problems while they are small is more effective at really fixing things than hunting for big, dramatic ego boosting solutions. Doctors pay little attention to nutrition for people like me, though it makes a big difference in outcomes. Lung transplants grab more headlines and glory than trying to help people keep their own lungs functional and healthy.
Peace.
"Doctors pay little attention to nutrition for people like me, though it makes a big difference in outcomes. Lung transplants grab more headlines and glory than trying to help people keep their own lungs functional and healthy.".
While I realise you might have had bad experiences, I know lots of medical researchers who are dedicating their lives to trying to cure disease, in any way possible. Many doctors would be very interested in proving how diet can help disease, and doing so.
My oldest son also has CF. When he lost five pounds, his clinic treated it like a crisis and at their encouragement I put a big bowl of chocolates and other crap on the coffee table and encouraged him to snack. After he gained back about 2.5 pounds and his clinic got off our backs and quit sounding like they might report me to social services if he didn't gain weight to their satisfaction, we returned home and he promptly handed me the bowl and announced "We are never doing this again. I feel like crap."
We have since worked on "eating right", largely the opposite of the junk food diet currently advocated by CF teams. Ten years later, we are both drug free and the healthiest we have ever been. The hole in my left lung is gone. And so forth.
Chiming in on bad experience: Thankfully, I don't have CF or anything of the sort; I just appear to be statistically improbable. On way too many medical diagnostics, I'm in the 1% of the scale -- though everything about me seems normal.
Except weight; I used to be 100kg (220 lbs) on a 5'11" (1.78m) frame. Full, but not overly obese or really fat. But I was on a 800-100 calorie diet for years at that point. (Not because of trying to lose weight; I just didn't have the appetite, and would go days, and in a few cases, weeks, without eating anything).
I had responses similar to those described by Mz from practitioners - I've paid good money to consult with many, supposedly expert and the best around -- disbelief and general disinterest.
And then I became (mostly) normal by cutting out wheat. This was met by "oh, that's interesting" and "oh, that's psychosomatic" (Because the standard wheat allergy test came up negative), and general disinterest. I'm eating a lot more now (wheat excluded), and am down to 80-85kg range.
There's still a lot about me that is statistically improbable, including body temperature. I'm sure it's all related, but I can't find a medical researcher who cares, so I have to do my own "research".
> Many doctors would be very interested in proving how diet can help disease, and doing so.
I would be happy to meet those doctors. In my experience, however, they turn into your standard everyday doctor somewhere between the 3rd year of med school and the end of their internship.
Celiac causes wheat and dairy intolerance. People with my disorder are at higher than normal risk for also having Celiac. An alternative med group I know of suggests that Celiac has a genetic component but is triggered by metal poisoning -- I mean having active symptoms is triggered by metal poisoning. Chelation makes some sufferers of Celiac asymptomatic. I have not done a formal chelation protocol but I have reason to believe I have reduced the metal load on my system. I tolerate wheat and dairy better than I used to, have improved appetite, and have shrunk dramatically. My hypothesis is that my genetic disorder involves misprocessing metals and thus involves increased vulnerability to metal poisoning.
FWIW: People with CF tend to run warm. I do not. I have a long history of being cold natured (including an abnormally low temp when not feverish), something which has improved somewhat with getting healthier. Given that CF is a salt wasting condition and salt changes the boiling and freezing points of water, it kind of makes sense to me that it appears to typically alter normal body temperature. If you wanted my advice, which you most likely don't, I would suggest you get tested for Atypical CF if you haven't been previously and look into the possibility of metal poisoning as a factor.
Congrats on your improved health. Best of luck. Apologies for my compulsive helpful streak. I am working on it. I'm just extremely stressed out today.
Peace. And thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Much appreciated. My approach to conversations is "hurt me with the truth, never comfort me with lies; tell me all you can, I'll filter it myself".
> I have a long history of being cold natured (including an abnormally low temp when not feverish),
I do too, actually - that's another thing no "expert" I consulted had anything to comment on (or has even shown interest in), even though this is surely an important marker.
> If you wanted my advice, which you most likely don't, I would suggest you get tested for Atypical CF if you haven't been previously and look into the possibility of metal poisoning as a factor.
I do want your advice. A quick google, however, did not find a reasonable reference for atypical CF, and since I don't have a sufficiently open minded doctor, I don't think that would work -- could you give more references about the definitions, what tests are involved, and if one can do them privately?
> Peace. And thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Thank you. And good luck!
The most common test is a sweat chloride, which basically measures the saltiness of your sweat. Historically, a result below 40 was considered normal, above 80 was CF and the range in between was an undefined grey zone which is now recognized as a milder form of CF. My son and I both tested consistently at 41. Though I have heard some different number ranges discussed on some lists, so there may be some variables I am unaware of.
I am not sure how you can get one. Mine required referral but my ex was career military and the referral was necessary so insurance would pay a civilian facility for the services. It simply isn't done just anywhere. There are several techniques, all noninvasive.
Some nonscientific "tests" or indicators: Does your skin/sweat taste saltier than average? Do you get worse aquagenic wrinkling than most people (in other words, do you prune up badly in the bath)? Do you seem more prone than average to suffer shocks from static electricity? Those are all typical for CF.
Best of luck.
I thought it would be that most people have preconceived notions of what problems are important. But these notions don't necessarily correspond to reality. By definition, when you are trying to break new ground, you don't know what's important because no one has thought about it before.
In academia, and big companies, you see this a lot. The difficulty or impressiveness of a problem gets mistaken for its importance.
His example is that games like Doom led to higher power computing. I guess that's true, but I don't think we should have to justify things like making video games in terms of the benefit they'll bring to "noble pursuits" like curing cancer. Sometimes people just want to have fun and waste time.
But all in all I agree that people shouldn't prejudge what is important or not. This is often driven by fads. Doing random things is important because they lead you to unexpected places.
I can't help but look at elder people and think it's a disservice to wire them to those machines, fix their hearts with what I'd call batteries and generally go to any extent as long as it "extends" life at any cost.
Perhaps it's simply related to the way I lead my life and the choices I make but I'd rather live 50 freaking years than a freaking 100.
The difference between us and any other animals is that we use our brains in extremely wise way. We colonized the world and technically are standing on the top of animal tree. It would be only logical to use that brain to solve human's nature biggest issue: how to live longer, or forever.
I want me and my family to live forever, because that's how much I love them and love my life. I am not certain whats after death. If you don't believe in existence of any nonphysical creations like spirits, soul, hell or heaven, then nothing exist after death, nothing. Your brain falls apart into dust and since your brain is you and your world, your world ends.
Another reason to keep people living longer is because medicine is constantly pushing the envelope. There are TEDs videos of scientists literally printing human liver and other elements of body. Truly science-fiction stuff, yet real.
I think in 100 years from now, we will be immortal. Of course that causes the biggest challenges ever, like how to feed everyone, how to accommodate people, etc, but there is tremendous improvement in those sectors happening as well, so most likely we will be ready.
Something may be important to someone but completely unimportant to someone else. Importance is subjective, so there's no such thing as important and unimportant problems. This may seem like a run-of-the-mill "everything is relative" statement (which are usually not very constructive) but I think that this is pertinent here, because nothing is important on its own, but it may be important to a person or a group of people, so talking about the importance of things without taking into account who they're important to doesn't make much sense.
For instance, GPU hardware was developed to run first-person shooters with increasingly fancier graphics. Today, it powers some of the largest high-performance computing clusters where “important” science is done.
Would you say that science aided by high-performance computing is automatically important in a cultural sense? What if that science is actually military research? Because I see developing weapons and other means of violence to be detrimental to civilization.
.. but blogging led to me being discovered by an editor at Apress who asked me to write a book about Ruby (which I'd been blogging about). That led to a blog I created to promote the book that then became the most popular Ruby blog and was my main source of income for several years. I won't give the rest of the life story but it went on to getting funding for a startup, selling that startup, being invited to chair an O'Reilly conference, and more. All from that "unimportant" personal blog. So I totally buy into this idea!
Work on a problem that (1) you feel you can solve, (2) you think is worth solving, and (3) will challenge you. That's important enough.
About a decade ago, I remember reading a fiction book about a pilot, who, among other things was unhappy that TCAS (radar system on a plane to keep it from flying into other planes) didn't communicate with the GPWS (radar system on a plane to keep it from flying into the ground) when telling the pilot how to avoid a mid-air collision.
The consequence is that TCAS could possibly tell a pilot to run right into a mountain, while trying to not run into another plane. This is, of course, bad.
The book harped on this at great length, and one of the many bad things it had to say about the FAA is that suffocatingly heavy regulation prevented manufacturers from making changes that could save lives.
I finish the book, all fired up, get on the internet, and discover that, hey, TCAS II does exactly what it should, and doesn't tell the pilot to fly into the ground. The problem was fixed, by the FAA, without needing to abolish the FAA. There was never any controlled flight into terrain crashes as a result of bad TCAS directives. I got needlessly angry for no reason at all.
Randomization can get you unstuck from the locally optimal trough you've found yourself in.
But people like games, both making them and playing them. You might not enjoy solving "important" problems, you might just want to make games and have fun. Focus on what interests you, not what society deems "important," and you'll be much happier.
Sometimes the ones that seem small lead to big things (I got an IPO out of one such). Often - ouch! - the ones that initially seem like they will be Important turn out to be ho-hum. But regardless of ultimate Importance (however you choose to measure that), it is a RUSH every time you find an elegant solution.
That's why even as an 'old guy' I still love developing so much... even a relatively modest app provides daily doses of interesting sub-problems to crack.
P(important outcome | work on unimportant project) > P(important outcome | work on important project)
I doubt it.
"Office software arguably solves no important problem: as Berglas convincingly argues, office automation results not in increased productivity, but in increased complexity of rules and regulations."
(at which point a link is given to "Berglas" writing.
Unfortunately I can find nothing on Dr. Anthony Berglas either on the site linked to or on his apparent page at the university other than "research"
http://itee.uq.edu.au/~csmweb/personnel/berglas.html
So we have a claim that office software solves no important problem because some person who I've never heard of and can't find anything about says so.
Richard Feynman explains:
"In his eccentric collection of autobiographical stories (see reference), Richard Feynman recounts: "I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling. I had nothing to do, so I start figuring out the motion of the rotating plate. I discovered that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate—two to one. It came out of a complicated equation! I went on to work out equations for wobbles. Then I thought about how the electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it… the whole business that I got the Nobel prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate." A replica of the Cornell plate is now part of an exhibit marking the centennial of the Nobel Prize."
Feynman didn't have a policy "work on unimportant problems" or "work on important problems." Rather, he worked on problems that interested him.
Yes, one can only engage with a problem that has personal relevance. Mostly people aren't engaged. They are notionally working on 'important problem X', but their real problem is how to please an authority figure or how to further a career. Which aren't interesting.
A study of history shows that objective progress is possible, so it follows that it must come about by lots of Feynman-like people working on their own apparently unimportant problems.
This can be explained by the way reality and our knowledge of it are structured. Solutions to problems typically have 'reach'. Thus in order to solve parochial problems people typically create fundamental theories which automatically apply to all sorts of other problems, including important ones.
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is a fascinating read which has a lot to say about this sort of thing.
Thanks.
Here's an example of something unimportant: maybe Microsoft C, version 7, which was released in 1992, has a typo in a menu item that was never fixed. (The next version of the software was Microsoft Visual C++ version 1.0). True, nobody has used Microsoft C version 7 to compile a program in many years now, but - there you go. An unimportant problem.
That would be an example of an unimportant problem. Releasing a patch to fix the menu typo right in the binary would be an unimportant solution to an unimportant problem. Maybe if you take the time to release it, literally 0 people ever apply that patch from now until the end of time.
If you want to work on an "unimportant problem" fix bugs in software versions that were discontinued and which nobody used because of a quick migration to the next branch. Work on fixing Windows 2, maybe.
No, what the author really means is work on something very important, that doesn't evaluate as such to everyone, (or to the people you normally pay attention to). That, I can agree with.
Step 1: Define "unimportant" as "actually important"
Step 2: Write catchy title based on new definition, making it sounds controversial.
Step 3: Profit?
Which someone should totally do, just so that I can laugh once.