Fake bets on diversity look like effusive praise and superlatives of people who don’t appear to have done anything special to deserve it. Real bets on diversity look like pointless decentralization/distribution in projects where there’s an obvious, cheaper centralized approach.
-
-
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.