In my work, I have always found that the main "blocker" (I hesitate to use the term "bottleneck"), is human nature.

If we design stuff to be used by humans (what I generally do), then it's imperative to take basic human nature into account, and that can be incredibly annoying.

Annoying, or not, human nature is a major factor, and won't go away, no matter how many times we tap our heels together. I think it was Philip K. Dick that said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away."

Designing stuff for processes and machines to consume, is pretty straightforward. Designing stuff for humans, however, is really challenging (which is one of the reasons that I like doing it).

▲

dgellow a day ago | parent | next [-]

I would go further and say that the human should be the bottleneck/blocker. If not designed for and to serve humans, which means to have human in the position of power and control and take in account all the various human oddities, why are we building all of this?

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent | next [-]

That depends on the bottleneck. When the bottleneck to me getting something I want is other humans won't allow me...

Of course this goes both ways. Some things I could name here everyone would agree I shouldn't be allowed to do. Other things are things that it wouldn't be hard to convince everyone here (but the opposition would remind you that I'm ignoring their points)...

▲

HardlyCognizant a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> why are we building all of this?

To remove humans from power in all cases where our biases and animalistic nature would cause unnecessary suffering to others. As a species we are quickly approaching some very hard problems that no individual, or even small group, is capable of handling in a consistently rational manner. On our current trajectory of resource constraints and habitability constrictions, ethics by the numbers is inevitable.

We are either going to leave it to the powerful to sacrifice those they consider undesirable, as we have throughout history, or replace them with something not afflicted by the flawed elements of human nature to make the most compassionate decision possible amidst the horror.

▲

asdff 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Reminds me of the joke "Want to lose an ugly 20lbs? Cut off your head!"

▲

pluralmonad 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you make sure the thing you are hoping saves everyone has an inclination (or ability) to do so? How do you make sure it is only afflicted with the human parts you like and not the ones you don't?

	▲	HardlyCognizant 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing can save everyone, that's the point. There is no miracle out there that suddenly makes the world a fairy tale. And I don't have an answer, otherwise I would have made a claim to that effect. This is a hard problem, and the human mind is not naturally equipped to work at the scales in question. Perhaps the solution is a thing (e.g a program), a process like democracy of some ilk, or something else entirely. The important part is recognizing our limits and working to account for them in our solutions. Acting without that awareness is a recipe for disaster.

▲

RandomLensman 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is rational? Who determines what is a true constraint vs a choice, etc.?

▲

dgellow 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That reads like satire, but just to be extra sure: you’re not serious, right? That’s a monstrous position to have

▲

curuinor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a lotta humans, not just one, and some have power over others.

▲

rbn3 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, sweet summer child

	▲	KPGv2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the informative comment. I no longer am inclined to agree with the person you were responding to.

▲

sodapopcan a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> and that can be incredibly annoying

One thing you have to be careful of, mostly when working on internal tools, is that you don't end up building around the idiosyncrasies of one particular person. This is something that actually happens in some places.

I actually find "bottleneck" a nicer word than "blocker" here (although not sure if "nicer" is what you are going for). I really like building for humans and the only times I've ever truly felt excited about being a developer is when I've had direct contact with my customers. It can be very trying, but the payoff is always nice.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY a day ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. I write free apps, for people that have no particular motivation to use them, but benefit greatly, when they do (once they figure it out). Also, statistically higher-than-normal portion of disabled folks (cognitively, as well as physically). I need to make sure my stuff is really usable. I have busted my ass, implementing stuff that I think is marvelous, only to have it ignored, or even despised. Quite humbling.

▲

snarf21 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What a great quote from PKD! He had so much insight into what the future would become.

▲

ball_of_lint a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does human nature explain the difference in regulation and therefore progress between US and China Pharma?

I mean to say: Yes it's certainly a factor, but we're also leaving fences in our own way.

▲

fellowniusmonk a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Anything digital basically has the chaos fuzzed out by its binary nature.

The analog gets all the real entropy.

Humans are cool because our distribution is exploring the future curve of what is possible in a hostile universe and to do that successfully over time we have to have the humility to always have someone unsure of even our most basic facts.

Sucks for most of those edge distribution humans but good for the species.

But this is why our criteria of reasonable is aligned with the center of distribution and why we have colloquial statements like "if you design for everyone you design for no one".