Conversation

Replying to
The first sounds like “We have an amazing, incredible, wonderful, talented team blah blah” The second sounds like “Yeah I know it would be easier to simply have 1-2 people make all the decisions or even just do the whole thing, and it looks needlessly messy and complex but...”
1
28
I was looking at a group thing I’m leading and thinking: I could knock this whole thing out in a day and be done with, and it would probably be very good, even better on many dimensions than this group thing we’re doing.
1
18
The only reason to do it this way at 10x the coordination cost and synthesis headaches is as a bet on viewpoint diversity. Otherwise it would be Keynesian makework.
2
28
This takes serious architecture. It’s like map-reduce distributed programming to achieve a simple sort of a small list that could easily be done one a single computer with a one-line program. Except it’s not a simple sort with a mechanical formula to get to the one right answer.
1
19
This is a problem with zillions of acceptable answers that fit the nominal solution constraints, and the size of the problem is within reach of 1-2 people. Getting to *a* answer or even *the best* answer in some sense is easy, and best done in the most centralized way possible.
1
11
But the kinds of answers you get depend on how you set it up. Engineering diversity into a solution process generates types of solutions that don’t emerge with low diversity. And sometimes that’s what you want in a solution set. Even if it means giving up quality in other ways.
2
26
Replying to
Need to diversify each previously-bottlenecked resource or position which could be exploited, and diversify the existing capital pool itself (which is defacto role of decider in every system). Then yes - tech solution could solve things. (Tbf, Crypto is attempting the former)
1