Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I recently wrote[0] something related about my observations on toolmakers and their craft.

"In life you're a tool maker or a tool user. What we're building at Baqqer[1] is a tool. Here's something I've noticed about tools and the people that make them. There are ultimately two types of tool makers.

The first type of tool maker is an observer and participant of their own craft, and as such can make very insightful decisions on how to devise a tool from the systematic understanding of what explicitly and implicitly goes into the work being shaped by these tools. Typically these tools are utilitarian and without form in excess beyond what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the task. This is the truest form of tool.

The second type of tool maker is an observer, but not a participant in a craft. These tool makers tend to be cloning tools with small changes, or seeing a problem where there might not be one, because they might not truly understand the way makers participate in this task of their craft. This is the weakest form of tool.

To say there is not evidence to support contraries in both statements is false, but I would expect these instances to be outliers. These statements also do not dismiss the contributions made by outsiders of a craft, as there is something to be said about observing outside the traditions of a craft. I would even suspect large leaps of innovation in the craft might be made from the application of knowledge and modes of thinking leveraged from other/disparate pursuits."

[0] https://www.facebook.com/dpgailey/posts/10102604703490186?pn...

[1] https://baqqer.com/

>There are ultimately two types of tool makers.

Which is why it's so important for young people to go into industry before entrepreneurship. Learn a business, identify the gaps, solve the problems. Thinking you have world-changing insight into industries you've never experienced is hubris at its worst.

There's a freely available book from MIT, called "Democratising Innovation" that talks about a similar dichotomy:


They are a little more even handed though. I think one of the examples are specialised scalpels. They point out that a doctor innovating a new surgery may need a tool which simply doesn't exist, and theyll need to build it themselves.

On the other hand, a professional scalpel maker may know about a new alloy, or a new casting technique, or a way to mass produce them for pennies. You get the best product when both types of innovation are present.

This is great. Reading now. Thanks for the recommendation.

I must be missing something about bagger.com.

I can see a few "vapour" ideas/concepts, some software, games, instructionals (however immaterial), and among the more material objects, an artisan made knife for US$ 150 apiece and a wax canvas bag for wheelchairs for a mere US$ 250 apiece.

But not any "tool".

I had expected "makers" to be more like the ones on the site this thread is about, making some heavy, sturdy, simple, cheap, effective tools.

>There are ultimately two types of tool makers.

i subvert logical fallacy by acknowledging 'the undiscussed third'

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact