It's easy to get into flow if you mainly do 1 kind of thing in 1 kind of workflow. And once you get into flow, output is a simple function of raw physical energy/stamina and your leverage scaffolding. But doing it with 10 kinds of thing in 10 kinds of workflows is 1000x harder
Conversation
There should be a term for this. Something like breadth-first heavy-lift architectural intelligence. It's not IQ, it's a different trait. I've met people with genius levels of this, and they tend to be above average intelligence in trad terms, but not geniuses.
1
2
39
"Architecture" is not quite it though. There's a full-stack, end-to-end quality to the thinking that architects of any sort typically lack. Talented architects are good at laying out strategic contours and key tactical details. But not heavy lifts like this.
1
1
18
Like Tolkien himself would count as an excellent architect. But he worked primarily in a single strategic medium, the text. Closer to mathematics than epic cinema. On balance, I'd say making the films was a greater achievement than writing the books.
2
24
Speaking of Tolkien, I recall an interview where he said he was often asked why the eagles couldn't just drop the ringbearer into mordor, and he said his response was "oh... shut up!" (good humoredly). Elegant architecture can get away with logic fails in a way movies can't.
3
21
I wonder what the most full-spectrum complex thing humans do that is driven by a single individual. I think it's a three-way dead heat between bleeding edge space missions, complex movies, and computer hardware (bottom half of stack from silicon to low-level system software)
4
3
17
Top-half-stack software is more sprawling complexity of course, but it's not a singular vision and doesn't need to be.
So the 3 wonders of the modern world are:
1. JWST or Perseverance
2. Recent chip like say Zen3 or Apple M2
3. LOTR
4
1
29
Replying to
LIGO achieves a strain sensitivity of better than 1 part in 10^22. In some ways it's the greatest achievement of humanity. It really ought to be impossible.
3
3
7
Replying to
yeah, it's up there, though I'm going for high-dimensional complexity (stressing a lot of different limits at the same time)
1
Replying to
Just because an end is simple doesn't mean the means is. It pushes so many different limits it's ridiculous...
1
1

