
Stop tech-driven problem-solving - todayispotato
https://medium.com/web11/tech-driven-problem-solving-39681fabd6a1
======
lvoudour
I think the title of the article does not accurately reflect the author's
thesis, which is more like "trending tech may not be the best solution to your
problem". I agree that riding the hype train instead of using established
"mundane" tools is probably a bad idea for most problems, but exploring
existing tech that might help you also qualifies as "tech-driven problem-
solving" IMHO

~~~
marktangotango
I've worked at a large financial services company and a large medical billing
company who both thought they could use big data and machine learning to
monetize customers(!) data. Niether had expertise with either. One muddled
through with local talent, the other brought in a ph.d ML guy. Both spent
millions and got nothing in return. Anecedotal, but representative I believe.

~~~
lvoudour
I don't know how big those companies are, but they may qualify for big data if
they have millions of users or enormous datasets to analyze. The question is,
what's the advantage compared to other methods? Is being "left behind" a valid
concern for the company's business or is it just a teenager's version of "left
behind"?

~~~
gaius
The fundamental problem of Big Data is that the low hanging fruit has already
been picked. Geezers (in a non gender specific sense) with 30 years in
industry X have already either intuited it, or it has been uncovered by
traditional KDD techniques. What do Big Data, Machine Learning or Data Science
have to offer there? The remaining fruit may be very high indeed, and not
economically pickable anyway...

------
jasode
Author provides 2 examples: (1) blockchain and (2) big data Hadoop map reduce

(1) blockchain: most arguments about blockchain always being replaceable with
a traditional single node central database conveniently leaves out the
constraint for decentralized control. Yes, if you change the ideal goals for
the solution, of course you can propose the traditional solution. (E.g. a
government central database of property records does not solve the same
problem as a decentralized blockchain of property records.)

The problems that blockchains are attempting to solve is real. The more
interesting discussion is whether the costs of implementation (whether Proof-
of-Work or Proof-of-Stake) will ever deliver on that promise. Two
possibilities: (1) subsequent failed attempts of blockchains eventually lead
computer scientists to a theorem that states any decentralized scheme always
_costs more_ than the economic value returned. (The theorem would be similar
to the ironclad conclusions of CAP theorem or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
and also similar to discovering you _can_ synthesize gold but the cost (of a
nuclear reactor) to do it costs more than the gold itself.) Or (2) more
computer science thinking finally makes blockchains feasible for real world
applications. Feasibility includes cpu costs, transactions-per-second, 51%
attacks, rogue forks, etc.

(2) Hadoop map reduce: he writes...

> _" The entire business plan of a ton of companies [...] set up these huge
> data clusters based on Hadoop and write complex MapReduce queries for basic
> operations, and wait for the spice to flow. But there’s no end game. When
> asked, there’s no vision on what to do with the data that will actually make
> money"_

Author should spell out exactly which data companies are spending millions
gathering hundreds of terabytes/petabytes with zero clue what to do with it.

Yes, there are all sorts of examples out there of _" solutions looking for a
problem"_ but this particular essay is empty of insightful data points.

~~~
dilemma
Blockchain isn't decentralized. The network is run by a handful of companies,
mainly in China.

~~~
jasode
I was talking about blockchains. Are you talking about Bitcoin?

blockchain != Bitcoin

blockchain != Ethereum

~~~
dilemma
Reasons other blockchains won't exhibit the same behavior as the two most used
ones? None.

~~~
codegladiator
Reasons N+1 th implementation wont exhibit the same behavior as the N most
used ones ?

How is that none ?

------
anovikov
Big data: they nailed it! Every single application of 'big data' i ever saw
was hype-driven, and much easier solved by boring, traditional things that
were there in K&R era already: hash maps, Berkeley DB, and memory-mapped
files. Sometimes taking 100x less resources, like literally doing on a single
computer what took a huge Hadoop cluster.

Maybe on a Google scale of data, that doesn't work as easily. Maybe when you
have a billion dollar infrastructure bill, big data works better. But it
leaves out 99% of companies who's data isn't that big.

~~~
justadeveloper2
Shut your mouth--I can't keep charging $250/hr. unless people BELIEVE!

But seriously, I just came off a project last year that used Hadoop "because"
and for no other discernible reason. I personally did a ton of studying on
Data Science and then...crickets. Couldn't find anyone who really wanted that
kind of work done. Maybe in time.

~~~
savman
I'd be curious if anyone else has had the same experience re: Data Science.

From what I've seen so far it seems like the super big tech companies pay _all
the money_ for ML/DS people; outside of that the pickings seem to get slim
quick.

~~~
marcosdumay
In all fairness, the super big companies (not only tech) are the only ones
with any big data.

------
FrankyHollywood
Every new technology needs firing up, which means hype it and hope some people
can do something usefull with it. It's hard to imagine new technology without
hype, how else can a large group of people be aware of it existing at all?

The Amish decide 200 years ago 'lets stick with current technology'. It works,
they have houses, food, friends, a living.

Why go further? This topic is almost existential :)

~~~
icebraining
Not even the Amish are unanimous on what technology should actually be used,
though :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Use_of_technology_by_dif...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Use_of_technology_by_different_Amish_affiliations)

------
dvfjsdhgfv
The author makes several important points, but I'm not sure he fully
understands the mechanics of the market. As a founder, I don't necessarily
have to think about solving a problem or making money. I just need to gather
enough users. Once I go past a certain threshold, I can sell the company (with
the users being the main value), and this is what many of my friends are
trying to do. Of course at the heart of the app/service there is some benefit
to the user, but few people have the illusion they're solving some world
problems - they just want to find a smart way to earn substantial money while
doing what they know and like to do.

~~~
mbillie1
> As a founder, I don't necessarily have to think about solving a problem or
> making money. I just need to gather enough users. Once I go past a certain
> threshold, I can sell the company (with the users being the main value), and
> this is what many of my friends are trying to do.

The valley sickness in a nutshell.

------
bitwize
Funnily enough, microcomputers themselves were once the technology solution in
search of a problem. The "home computer" fad of the 80s promised lots of
applications that didn't quite pan out, including finance, "helping kids with
the homework", "the little lady can store her recipes", and home automation.
The only ones that really panned out were games (including edutainment),
spreadsheets, word processing, and maybe small single-user databases. Anything
more required much more sophisticated and expensive equipment, which wouldn't
become commonplace till around the 386 era.

~~~
le-mark
>> the little lady can store her recipes

That's a great perspective, and I'm really glad you mentioned this in
particular. It's one of those things that was so often repeated, and I always
found it to be really bizarre. Recipes? Really?

I'd add music synth to your list of real world uses, in some sense that was a
killer app for microprocessors.

~~~
cr0sh
This machine - a 16-bit computer from 1969 (!) - was marketed as a "kitchen
computer", among other things:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_316)

Seriously.

------
cousin_it
Also known as "fad", "buzzword" or "solution looking for a problem". The
blockchain and big data are good examples. Some past examples are the internet
of things and the semantic web.

------
_lex
This article makes a ton of sense for people in smaller companies that aren't
worried about rapidly shifting markets and the long time-to-delivery of new
functionality that is made possible by technology. He's effectively arguing
"why build android when j2me already exists". The problem is that when the
iphone comes out, you want something you can quickly retool into a competitive
product - otherwise you might get killed by the movement of the market itself.
See blackberry & windows mobile for what happens when you're too late to the
game.

Now, you could argue that it makes more sense to try to make the iPhone
instead of a me-too system like android originally was. But most companies
aren't apple of 2005, and they know it. They know they aren't really leading
in anything - they just don't want to be left in the dust. So they ask their
tech teams to investigate stuff that might be transformational, like the
blockchain, because if it did create a new green field, they want to have
access to the new market and at least near-first mover advantage.

~~~
todayispotato
I'm afraid you then might have missed my point by a little bit. Let me try and
clarify.

I think new technologies are awesome. But I think you shouldn't look at a
technology and ask "which problems should I solve with this?", but rather at
the problems you have and then consider "which technologies should I use to
solve this problem?".

The last one does mean you have to become good at identifying problems in your
company or product offering, which is much harder than finding technologies.
But I think that is a very worthwhile goal.

------
jaclaz
The linked to document is unavailable, but there is a google cache of it:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bZt3Y3m...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bZt3Y3meUJYJ:https://www.stichtsevecht.nl/bestuur/pers_42531/item/onderzoek-
innovatieve-technologie-voor-verbeterde-dienstverlening-in-het-sociaal-
domein_56332.html%2Bonderzoek-innovatieve-technologie-voor-verbeterde-
dienstverlening-in-het-sociaal-domein_56332.html)

Which is not that bad in Google translate.

Essentially:

Blockchain when requesting wheelchairs Blockchain is a new technology whose
impact is compared to the arrival of the Internet. The Quality Institute of
Dutch Municipalities (KING) organizes pilots to investigate what Blockchain
technology can mean for municipalities. Stichtse fought with the research
question whether Blockchain is useful when requesting a wheelchair. The pilot
shows that Blockchain can offer many benefits. For example, the process of
requesting issue with Blockchain is faster and more transparent. Residents
with Blockchain have more views on the status of their application, as with
Track & Trace in a mail package. In addition, the administration around the
application becomes a lot easier for all parties.

On the original page there is a link to a dedicated site:

[http://hostedby.frogjump.nl/blockchain-
magazine#!/stichtse-v...](http://hostedby.frogjump.nl/blockchain-
magazine#!/stichtse-vecht)

where there is a link to an actual .pdf (largely in English):

[http://cdn.instantmagazine.com/upload/6826/blockchain-
sticht...](http://cdn.instantmagazine.com/upload/6826/blockchain-
stichtsevecht.3d0bc1fbf62d.pdf)

with a detailed process analysis from which it is clear how the "blockchain"
has actually no meaning/usefulness in the whole stuff the "problem" (or "non
problem") can seemingly be solved by much more traditional technical
approaches (which is the article Author's thesis).

------
jesperlang
I think the author has an interesting direction but don't quite like the
examples..

Taking a step back and looking at it more generally I see this as problem
solving vs problem finding (in Alan Kay's words), where a perfect example
would be the hype with self driving cars and high speed car tunnels. This is
problem solving (traffic jams, car accidents, "I need to get there faster").
Whereas problem finding will ask the bigger questions that will lead to better
results. In the question of transportation I think you should set up yourself
to the problem "How do we build car free cities?"

~~~
todayispotato
You might have a point. The article was written to be thought provocative, to
make people consider what they are doing.

The actual underlying issue however is that finding and identifying problems
to be solved is _hard_. It's much easier to focus on something concrete like a
piece of technology.

An example is, well, your example. The problem "How do we build car free
cities?" is already much better than "How do we avoid traffic jams". But it's
simple to solve that problem, for example by banning all cars; that doesn't
solve the actual problem though (and is a bit silly).

The actual problem (I think) is not that there are cars, the problem is that
there are too many traffic movements necessary over a physically too limited
space to get everyone's needs satisfied.

Rephrasing the problem like that allows you to consider the various aspects of
the problem; how can we reduce traffic movements (public transport,
carpooling)? How can we more optimally use our limited space (smaller cars,
stimulate bike usage and bike lanes)? And what are the needs that are being
solved by traffic movements, and could we satisfy those without them (working
remotely, grocery deliveries)? And what would it be worth to us to reach these
goals, compared to the problem we are solving?

Perhaps I'll write an article on this specific mode of thinking. If I can
actually find a way to get it on paper of course.

~~~
jesperlang
Yes! I was deliberately phrasing my problem finding as "how to build car free
cities", which is too tech, phrasing the problem in relation to tech! But you
will quickly get to even bigger questions like "why do we move", "why do we
work" which will quickly lead to thinking about deep political issues..

~~~
todayispotato
Exactly. And then the trick becomes scoping and problem selection. You can't
solve everything after all!

------
jondubois
Hype in tech is terrible. If a technology gets an unusual amount of hype, it's
a sign that you should wait a few years before you consider adopting it.

Real consensus about a specific technology stack takes at least a couple of
years to build up. If a tech product becomes popular very quickly, it is
purely because of its superficial qualities - Often at the expense of finer
details.

------
flavio81
The author should also mention the following modern techniques used in hype-
driven software development:

\- microservices architecture

\- using document data stores despite your data being relational

~~~
todayispotato
I should have really used the latter...

------
whipoodle
Sure, but look a little wider. Most of what goes on is bullshit. Not just tech
crap. We're all just trying to make a little money.

~~~
todayispotato
Yes you're right. But next to making money, a lot of us are also doing our
best to do something valuable and worthwhile. It's just an attempt to get
people to think in a slightly different direction.

------
unixhero
Interesting quibble.

