

Solving the Wrong Problem - noblethrasher
http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/the-wrong-problem/

======
afarrell
I find it interesting that this was considered an innovative approach
considering the popular history of how the wright brothers succeeded the very
same way: by basing their plane on a bicycle and testing rapidly.

We often frame this in terms of keeping the cost of failure low...but that
failure isn't really failure is it? No more than running a round of unit
tests. Keep the cost of learning low.

------
obviouslygreen
_If the problem you are trying to solve involves creating a magnum opus, you
are solving the wrong problem._

This is trivially incorrect. If the problem is the creation of a magnum opus,
then the solution is creating a magnum opus.

Failure doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not necessary to fail at all
to improve your process; that this is the approach that's often most effective
has nothing to do with the approach itself, it's a reflection of our poor
models of the problem space.

If we had a thorough understanding of the problems surrounding human-powered
flight, we'd be able (or much closer to being able) to create theoretical
solutions that could be effective.

I don't know if Mr. Macready actually stated that "the process" was the
problem, but if he did, I disagree with him as well. That the process many
people use is sub-optimal and you find a better one does not mean their
process was the problem. It means it was _one_ of _their_ problems. Further,
that it can be much faster to iterate on experimental results without a solid
model of the problem _does not_ mean iteration is somehow "the answer." It
means it's one way of getting to a solution without an accurate fundamental
understanding of the problem.

~~~
marcus_holmes
"This is trivially incorrect. If the problem is the creation of a magnum opus,
then the solution is creating a magnum opus."

I would say you just proved the point. If the problem is the creation of a
magnus opus then it is the wrong problem. Creation of a magnus opus with no
further use is pointless and a waste of everyone's time, so don't solve that
problem.

~~~
general_failure
There is no such thing as a wrong problem. It is a subjective decision

------
georgeecollins
Keep the cost of failure low and the value of success high.

------
parados
I think Paul MacCready really solved a different problem. Earlier man powered
aircraft (SUMPAC, Toucan, Puffin etc.) had been based on glider (sailplane)
technology that emphasised the highest possible lift/drag ratio achieved by
large span high aspect ratio wings and careful control of the aerofoil shape.
The span and aspect ratio make the aircraft complex and comparatively heavy.
MacCready realised that if the aircraft was made much simpler and lighter it
could fly at a lower speed and although the L/D ratio was poorer (all those
bracing wires!) the drag would be lower (V __2) and the power required (V __3)
much lower, within human range. The quick to fail, quick to rebuild was a
consequence of this simplicity.

Incidentally the photo showing the "speed ring" is nothing of the sort. Speed
to fly rings are about 80mm in diameter to fit on an instrument face.

------
twelve40
A bit too generalized for my taste. If you're solving a problem of passing a
well-defined benchmark (or closer to home, iterating on a kitten meme-sharing
app), then yes, fail away. If you are solving a problem of putting a man on
the moon in the 60s, then you get to coordinate hundreds of thousands of
people from education to fundamental science to industry to alloys to god
knows how many other things for years. And only then you can launch and really
find out if you succeeded or failed - both outcomes have precedents.

~~~
kabouseng
Well maybe the lesson is to always think how you can verify your solution
quicker. To take your example, that is the same line of reasoning Boeing is
taking as a subcontractor for NASA, but where SpaceX has shown that they can
verify their solution for half the cost that Boeing can[1].

[1] [http://qz.com/281619/what-it-took-for-elon-musks-spacex-
to-d...](http://qz.com/281619/what-it-took-for-elon-musks-spacex-to-disrupt-
boeing-leapfrog-nasa-and-become-a-serious-space-company/)

------
coldcode
Sometimes solving a hard problem is simply hard, and trying to treat it like
an easy problem by shortcutting is the wrong approach, but you might not
realize it until too late. Take building your own rocket technology vs. using
old Soviet engines from the 1960's. Ask Orbital Sciences today which approach
might have been better.

------
upofadown
The moral of the story should be a warning against analysis based on
insufficient understanding. MacCready was working on exactly the same problem,
in the same way, as everyone else. He just figured out a way to speed up the
experimental phase.

------
MaysonL
cf. John Boyd and the OODA Loop :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop)

------
pbreit
I might state it differently: set yourself up for iteration. Sounds a little
like the "Lean" tenets.

------
kakakiki
In a different context, Jack Sparrow said - The problem is no the the problem.
The problem is your attitude towards the problem!

