1) I find it amusing that an article regarding the supposed "Tragedy of the Commons" uses several Wikipedia quotes
2) The Tragedy of the Commons was thoroughly analyzed, with a great deal of empirical, historical data, by Elinor Ostrom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom Yes, one component of successful, long-lived common resources is related to group size. But you don't have to take my word for it, read her book, "Governing the Commons".
There's a huge tendency for smart people like computer scientists to think that, because they're smart, they can come up with "the solution" to systemic problem X without reading into the deep academic literature around it. I knew when I saw the title of the article on the front page that I (or someone) was going to need to preach the gospel of Ostrom in the comments.
That tendency is universal. Perhaps CS and technical people are more likely to publish their thoughts in blog posts, but it's natural for everyone to talk about what they find interesting, experts or not, and we all underestimate what we don't know. This is how human conversation works, and it's arguably harmless—phrases like "shooting the shit" communicate this.
I wonder if once a post shows up formally on something like HN's front page, we see it as implicitly claiming authority in a medium-is-the-message way, even if it all it's doing is thinking out loud. Then the article seems disappointing when it turns out just to be someone's notes on shit they were thinking about.
That's an unfair sweeping generalization about "smart people like computer scientists". Far more fair to say they enjoy thinking about, discussing, and attempting to solve problems. Trying to solve problems is a passion for all the good programmers I know.
And predicting / guessing at solutions without having done the "deep academic literature" reading is actually an excellent learning technique that connects you more deeply to the reading if you decide to go down that path. Or do the predicting in a blog post and get free answers from the experts correcting you.
I've "invented" a few things in my life only to later find the existing patents. I had so much fun doing it and learned so much, I'm glad I didn't know about the patents ahead of time.
I mean, great that you had that experience, and thankfully you didn't make a blog post talking about how you solved ______. It's fine to come up with ideas on your own, but if you don't know enough about the field to know whether you're on the right track, don't announce to the internet that you've found the solution.
That's a strawman. Author's own words, right in the intro:
"I might be wrong but would love some feedback. It’s an exceedingly complicated topic which has been researched for hundreds of years so it might be that this observation has been made before."
And that very important word "might", right in the headline too.
>There's a huge tendency for smart people like computer scientists to think that, because they're smart, they can come up with "the solution" to systemic problem X without reading into the deep academic literature around it.
People that do come to solutions to problems (including deep problems), often come to them "without reading into the deep academic literature around [them]" first, so there's that...
