Loving all the discussion on this! Indeed, the size of my figurine may have confounded the first experiment (in the original design, their 'person' was much smaller, but this is the LEGO I had to work with at home and it hadn't occurred to me). I'm also finding it fascinating how big a role language/word use in the puzzles has impacted people differently, with words like "switching" having a different connotation to some people - I hadn't totally thought of that before! Regardless, hope you can appreciate the idea (and the research paper if you have a chance to look at it, in the description notes). It changed my perspective on decision making a lot, and hopefully it will have an impact on some of you as well :)
I did something similar to another person in the comments; rearranging the squares which requires 3 moves vs removing them which requires 4. Sometimes the most efficient solution is neither adding or subtracting.
I think it's actually demonstrating the overall point in a more meta way - people don't tend to think of subtractive solutions because in a lot of cases, *it's not obvious that a subtractive solution is even an option*. A word like "build" or "construct" automatically implies that you are adding something, and that type of framing in an initial scenario basically rules out options like "remove" or "streamline". Perhaps the way we get people to be more open to subtractive solutions is to use more 'neutral' words like "optimize" or "improve".
The role of language shouldn't be surprising in a puzzle that is explained with words. And I'm pretty sure _"switch"_ does not mean _"add or subtract"_ under any circumstances. It would be more genuine to just admit that you made an error.
@@JuanPablodelaTorre His language could be interpretted two different ways. Switching the location vs switching the color. Unfortunately this led to hang ups for many (including myself), but he wasn't *wrong* with his phrasing it was just incomplete.
@@SkylarsTerribleMemes I took it more as "switching squares on/off", which is the only reason I thought of removing the squares (i.e. switching the square off) in the first place
@@jazminramirez5291 I thought the same thing and realized that since the number of squares weren’t multiples of four for the other three puzzles, then it was impossible.
@@gonzalezm244 I just aimed for as symmetrical as possible, rather than perefect symmetry every time. I was also still thinking about the previous building question, and therefore was inadvertently seeing the green blocks as balancing something on top of them, therefore where perfect horizontal and vertical symmetry wasn't possible I was settling for a diagonal symmetry compromise that would still balance the imaginary thing that was on top (an only realised that that was what I had done when I went back to that point in the video after reading this thread). Following the extra rules I unwittingly added to the question I never moved more than 3 blocks to a new location, and only had an odd assymmetrically placed block left over on the last of the four grids.
lol I feel cheated on this. 1) I'm positive that lego man isn't going to fit under the roof piece by removing that block. 2) I totally thought "Switch any of the squares" meant I could only change the position of the squares, not flip square locations between green/white values. :\
"Improve the course without spending a lot of money". Who's the judge, first of all. Secondly, and more importantly, the question implies you have some allotment of money and thus are expected to spend some of it. Adding is somewhat encouraged by this. Also, how much does it cost to remove features? Shit questions.
Yeah there’s a problem with that Lego predicament: the left guy, when stood underneath “the roof,” is too tall to remove the one red piece. Therefore, it does not work in this example given one could visually see it would crush the Lego guy
You know what else. If you remove a brick it reduces the value of you're little structure by 10 cents. Apparently the designers of these puzzles don't understand economics at all.
@@ConnorVide Value isn't just selling something. Value is the practical function you get out of something. Price is an analogy to value. Otherwise there would be no reason for the puzzle, and solving it would be equivalent to just throwing it away unsolved.
00:50 "by switching any of the squares" I didn't I could add or subtract. The way you asked it made it sound like I could only move existing squares. 01:13 "make this mini golf course better" What does that even mean? Is better easier or more challenging? 01:23 "In the Lego example, people are most likely to add a block" The way the question was phrased I assumed the structure was already built and was were trying to reinforce what was there, not tear off the roof and rebuild it. If you want better answers you need to be more clear with your questions.
Absolute trash, this video, by a click-baiting narcissist… subscribed to these ages ago but really grossed out by him now and don’t want to watch any more.
tearing off the roof and making a new roof is actually more costly and uneconomic. lol. ofc anyone would think of adding assuming the structure was real. trash
plus, the objective was to make the platform stronger so it wouldn't fall on the guys head, but yet in his method the guy wouldn't have even fit between the gap lol
I thought of subtracting or moving blocks on all the suggested puzzles aside from the first lego one, probably due to you presenting a visual with the additional block; it never occurred to me that I was "allowed" to interfere with the premise.
yeah the puzzles weren't defined well enough. If you don't define a problem correctly (even giving ambiguos directives) it's obvious no one can get a correct or smart solution. Probably it was just a way to get the viewer attention. Anyway second half of the video was interesting
@@Ckombactman these are problems that ASAP science didn’t create. This is a summary of research. They’re meant to be vague. To show what you brain naturally thinks of. He even said that when given the option to subtract explicitly, people subtract more often
These questions are honestly just badly worded or have very specific and pedantic solutions. The lego brick seemed to be perfectly stable without any change SWITCHING (squares) is a vague term It may cost money to remove things from the golf course and dispose of the item etc.
"You're just part of the 49% that has a such a square way of thinking, you can't think out of the box." Yeah I agree with you this whole video was stupid
also. When they say that people turning white squares into green squares were "adding", how do they know that the people didn't think they were taking away white squares?
@@elorahbennett Yeah, my solution was to take one of the top row of blocks (in the middle somewhere) and move it to the corner. No extra blocks needed and the guy still fits.
@@Lexfrmtex well for the first example you could split the square in the top left corner into four smaller squares and place one in each corner of the picture.
For engineering, I can say that while we like removing elements, the issue usually becomes with backwards compatibility. Especially when people depend on something being a certain way (just try to drop the roof 1 foot on a building).
Exactly… I just moved the angle of the corner piece to 45 degrees, to make it a simple 90 degree shot… then wondered ‘is that what he means by better?’ - obviously, I then added more Dinosaurs. Ps. This is an absolute trash video. Actually can’t stand to watch him after this one, and didn’t mind him to begin with.
Absolutely agree. I just moved the tulips near the water closer to the base, to make the whole scene a bit more beautiful. It's also kinda making it better, am I wrong?
Yeah, however by removing that piece, the figure wouldn’t fit underneath anymore. So you excluded this solution from the beginning. The answers you said were wrong were actually better than your answer. Also it is safe to assume that in these kinds of scenarios irl it is much cheaper to add something to support the top and keep it at the same height than lowering the whole thing.
I’m a beginner coder, and getting used to deleting some code in order to rewriting or optimizing it is one of the most essential things you need to learn out there. The less code u write to solve a problem the better coder you are. One line solution is more appreciated then a ton of text. And yes, I broke my hand petting myself on the back for solving this puzzle with substraction, lol
hi comp sci student here, having more lines of code usually doesn't actually affect the efficiency if the same actual computation is being run. using less variables, optimizing the data structures used, or optimizing the actual algorithm will, but making three lines into one doesn't make a difference because it will be compiled to the same machine code. Using more lines (as long as the runtime and space efficiency is the same) just makes your code more readable. A lot of simple to write code is also really inefficient (ex. nested loops)
Exactly. It's the puzzle equivalent of a trick question, completely intentionally so. It's worded in such a way as to frame the problem as additive by putting a price on extra pieces used. The solver assumes that the question is about how to add the least number of bricks in the most optimal way, not a question about subtraction. But if we're going to allow "creative, out of the box solutions," then nowhere in the puzzle does it say we cannot move the Lego figure on top of the roof so that the brick doesn't fall on him. These kinds of trick puzzles only serve the ego of the person posing the question and have little to do with the creativity or intelligence of the person asked to solve it.
That's a great insight! And in my experience, this is exactly what you see in the real world. Ask any product manager what suggestions they get. When you need to solve a problem, the question is almost always phrased this way. What can we "do" to solve the problem, not undo. Can we add a feature. Can we add the functionality to do x. People don't think of removing as a natural solution because we often think that things were out in place for a reason without worrying about whether the reason was actually valid
0:51 When you said "switching", I interpreted that as "moving". I was explicitly under the impression that I couldn't add or take away green squares. That made the the others impossible as the number of green squares in each were not a multiple of four. Clear directions are important for puzzles.
On the lego problem specifically, the little figure doesn’t fit in your solution. So if following the instructions of ‘change the structure so you can add a block and the roof wouldn’t collapse on top of this figure’ you’d have to add blocks instead.
This is a good thing to keep in mind when doing creative work, too, such as writing a novel. It's always helpful to go through what you have already written and ask, "Is this section / scene / sentence / etc important? Would it hurt the story at all if I removed it or reduced it?" Removing / reducing unnecessary filler is always good for a story. As I'm sure we all can think of at least one person if not several who have complained about filler in tv shows, books, games, etc.
When you say “switching” it immediately makes you think that eliminating is not possible. The phrasing of the question is usually misleading to a certain extent and combine that with schools that get that mindset that removing is never the option and you have the answer as to what is going on.
0:47 for the record. I didn’t add or subtract. I took the four squares in the top left corner, and switch each one with an empty square in the other three corners. You said we had to make it symmetrical by “switching any of the squares”. That gave me the impression that I wasn’t allowed to add or subtract any of the squares. There is a contradiction here.
I needed to see this video tonight. I’m struggling with the home buying process and don’t want to downgrade my wants list to get into a home, but that’s exactly what I need to do. This video has just helped me become comfortable with that idea. Thank you!!
Just as others pointed out, the language used here is frustrating. The lego question was phrased in a way that almost "forces" you to think about adding blocks. And I had to rewind back multiple times to try to see if I missed anything with the "switching" instructions, again the question is phrased as if you had to switch the position of the colored blocks with another. If these were in line with the language used in the research paper, then I would seriously question the legitimacy of its conclusions
For the Lego puzzle, when you say "confusing language," do you mean how he said to change it and then told you that every extra piece would cost you? Cause I find that interesting. The phrasing misdirects you, priming you to think about minimizing the extra pieces instead of removing pieces. But isn't that how real life works too? You're given a job and told how much extra materials will cost, and you don't necessarily get that extra reminder to consider whether or not you actually need those materials. Someone else in the comments pointed out that language we use irl, like "construct" or "build," similarly primes us to think about adding rather than subtracting
@@justanotheryoutubecommente2 The confusing language was that he was comparing the LEGO blocks to a real-life construction. In the real world, removing the single support of a roof and then lowering the entire roof would be more costly than simply building a second support for the roof.
What about that if you removed the red block, the figure wouldnt fit anymore in the structure, so there was no way of removing it form my perspective. Also, missleading was the fact he pointed at the structure where you can PLACE the peace, its all about how the question was formed. Tests give you a problem with conditions which should be clearly defined in question or a problem, but education system taught us that when those condition arent clear you basicly need to become mind reader, which usualy means you need to include educators way of solving problems as a given condition based on lectures you attended.
The pictures I immediatly wanted to remove rather than add, however the lego example is flawed because you said he needs to fit under it meaning you could not subtract
And the pictures one was also flawed, as "switch" make it sound like the number of white and green blocks needs to remain constant, we're just allowed to swap them around.
I got stuck on the squares puzzle cuz you said "switch" squares, so i thought i had to swap them around, not add or subtract.... and quickly realised 3 of them were impossible lol
@@NemYan Sorry, i was thinking within the 10 moves rule that was mentioned, that you get $1 for completing it but costs 10 cents per move, but then I realized that only applies to the lego puzzle XD oops!
Math teacher: Jason, Why did you leave the whole test blank? Jason: you see I was thinking about adding extra text but I changed my mind and decided that a subtractive solution would be better
@@CarolineFarrow normally the task is to provide answers. As far as i remember all tests were formulated with "answer the following..." or "find a solution for..." and not with "avoid errors" .
0:53 "switching" instead of saying that you should have said "changing any of the individual squares" that would fix the confusion with what you mean by "switching" and the fact that at first i thought you could only more the 4 big squared or rotate them... (or maybe say what you cannot do so people still have to figure it out but don't waste time trying to understand the question.
if there are no rules... I don't like mini golf, I choose to flatten the whole thing and put up a taco bell. For the green squares. Paint it black. The legos, super glue it to the new Taco Bell drive thru window. Where's my one dollar? Did everyone else solve them all?
the problem is the framing of the questions, for example: "how would you improve this mini golf course without spending a ton of money?" well what is a ton money, and what constitutes an improvement, exactly?
Yea for the gold course I thought “this is already good, what is there to change?”. I also think removing stiff would just make the experience worse as there is already so little there.
@@rachelcookie321 I tought of removing the fence to have more challenge, but the picture was shown for such a small amount of time that I didn’t see if it really was a good idea
My first job out of college got so mad at me for not adding new code, but instead shrinking the codebase. Their code was written by a bunch of electronics engineers who read a "learn to code in 28 days" book. And so much of what they had written just wasn't needed. But when I was finished, when they wanted to change something, they now had to change it in one location instead of changing it in four hundred locations. And they didn't have to worry about missing any of them anymore.
Funnily enough, I thought to just move the awkward pieces inside of other pieces so they wouldn’t be visible, and on the golf course I thought to remove the awkward block
Yep. He said "switching", which I thought most likely meant swapping two cells with each other, as that would make for a more interesting design problem.
I started understanding this with arguments. Long drawn out paragraph don't work as well compared to a few sentences. But watching this video gave me insight to it
0:46 You say SWITCHING squares, as in, you pick two squares and switch their places. You don't say you change the color of individual squares. The wording of this makes the solution later not follow the original prompt.
As a programmer I have always found it best to make the code as simple as possible, even had teachers praise how easy it was to go through the code and know exactly what everything does. I once tried to make an ambitious program that did all sorts of fancy things then realized the same thing could be achieved with like half the code, went back and rewrote it with that mindset and it worked better than I thought it would. I didn't realize this was some awesome skill I had though and if anything it did feel a little lazy to do it that way
Alright time to remove a pillar supporting my balcony and lower it instead of adding another structure for support. Update: Turns out when you remove an essential pillar the whole house collapse. And I thought I was being smart.
That's why people study architecture 🤦♀️. Some pillars or wars are used to support the building or certain structures but some are for decoration or to make rooms, separate apartments etc.
If the goal there is to prevent the ceiling from touching the minifig's head, removing the red block doesn't work because the minifig is too tall to stand beneath the roof if the red block wasn't elevating it higher.
im glad other people are calling him out on the phrasing of the questions a big part of GOOD science is asking the right questions and checking how what you asked affected your results. theres a huge difference between "what would you add" vs "what would you change" vs "what would you switch"
The funny thing is was I was like "If only I could get rid of it" come to find out I could of XD. Either way I learned something new also someone being "naturally smarter" seems somewhat silly someone may learn something quicker but learning is always good just for anyone who feels bad about that.
0:51 "by switching" I thought it was about rearranging the blocks that are already there. I inmediately thought, symmetry is impossible for a number of blocks that isn't a multiple of 4.
I found this very interesting. I actually did not add or subtract to the problems you brought up in the beginning I just moved things around and kept all pieces there.
But you are adding a rule of being able to move stuff around. You switch 3 green pieces to white, then switch 3 white pieces to green, which is 6 movements. If "switching" was changing two tiles between themselves, other variants would be unsolvable. Unless, you consider "switching" as both switching two tiles around and switching the color of a tile by itself. Better written rules is the solution in the end :D
@@SunnyOst but the guy in the video litteraly said 'switching' not adding or subtracting so this should be the only and best possible way. But tbh the question was just very stupidly told
@@Basb04 You are switching the colors of the tiles. White doesn't mean an empty space with no tile, it means a white tile is there. But I agree, the way they presented all the problems pushed the solutions in certain directions and that is an issue
I think we’d feel bad to alter what’s given to us when trying to solve a problem, it kinda feels like you’d be destroying what has already been done by someone else (at least that’s how I feel about it). Still fascinating though!
I just thought to centralized the support, or even move it toward the weight-bearing edge on the first one. That is to say moving, instead of adding or subtracting.
in the words of Albert Einstein: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex ... it takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
I also had the similar instinct of moving (instead of adding or subtracting) the block around. Even though I personally am pretty conscious about trying not to add too much (or at least adding with intention), this video brought up a very interesting and applicable point - I often don’t think of subtractive solutions, which means that I might be missing out on some very valid of important solutions. My takeaway from this video is not that we ALWAYS must subtract, but that instead of defaulting to adding or moving, we should also consider subtracting. Thanks so much for a very interesting video that *added* a new perspective that can guide me in my decision making process.
Nothing about you, just that the green block puzzle was worded a bit weirdly. It seems that most people seem to think that he meant you had to move around the blocks you already had. But I'm guessing he went with that wording because "by adding or subtracting" would then make the solution too obvious.
In regards to the coding example, that is precisely the reason why learning to refactor is so important to developers. Refactoring in this context means re-evaluating existing code to reduce its size or optimize the process by removing duplicates.
"I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." - Bill Gates The easiest/laziest way is to always remove off any problem
As an engineer my first thought was to move the brick to the middle. However now you've shown I can crush people I just remove all the bricks and sandwich the two grey squares together
My room is a mess and I’ve been wanting to get organizers for like a month now but I’ve been putting it off and I’m so glad because it would’ve just created more clutter 😩😩
Lego puzzle: Move the minifig somewhere else. Squares puzzle: "Switching" means swapping positions, so adding or subtracting green tiles is illegal (that's not connotation, that's just language); if you're talking about flipping tiles that are green on one side and white on the other, you failed to mention that. As you basically need the same quadrant four times, only the first puzzle can actually be solved, because the others don't have a number of green squares divisible by 4. As for that first puzzle, swap the green tiles of the top left block with white tiles in the other quadrants' corners so there's one green tile in each corner, taking only 3 actions and making for a more efficient solution than even removing tiles, which would take 4. Mini golf puzzle: Sell it. Big improvement to me, and it earns money instead of spending it.
1:50, the lego figure doesn't fit in anymore if you do it this way, also I removed the blocks or swapped their position in example 2, and where is the solution to the golf course? I get the main message of the video, but it just isn't true for me
I figured that if that Lego structure was a real building then that space being held up by the block was there for a reason and removing it would impede its intended function; therefore the most efficient solution would be to move the support closer to the center of the roof...not awkwardly add more supports.
The way the green square puzzles were worded specifically only allowed moving. In that case, only the first puzzle shown can be completed at all, due to the other puzzles having unsymmetrical blocks not divisible by four.
This is definitely like my mom when she doesn't have any space at home, she just throws everything away, she never adds more storage, also my mom has always taught me to 'learn to do things with what you have, don't add to it because it's going to be costly,' also throw everything away, she'd thrown everything I kept as a kid away, so there goes my memories and toys, all thrown away.
Would the roof piece of the lego structure actually fit when you remove the red piece? Would it not be sitting on top of the man's head? Also, usually people who are building a structure already have things measured out to the size they want it to be. Removing the red block changes the height by quite a bit.
I thought of just moving the red square to the middle, for the green squares I moved them around, and I just moved that wooden stick from the corner to stick out of the top wall at an angle. Instead of adding or subtracting since I thought I had to keep it equal lol
the block one I thought "why not just take the red block" lol the squares I was thinking on moving one at each corner but the other ones seemed impossible so I was thinking "can we take out stuff?"
Kinda sad but I think additive solutions have been ingrained in us because subtractive solutions come across as more ‘lazy’. The organising one for example when I tell my mum I want to throw certain things out instead of getting organisers she says I’m just being lazy and wasteful. When in reality I probably won’t use them anymore.
This problem gas plagued me. When i used to create essays in HS. I could fill out all the info the teacher would want in 2 - 4 paragraphs. When the essay was a required 3 pages.
This goes to stuff like global warming. "We have to make cars more efficient to save the world" when in reality we would be a healthier species if used less of the appliances we think we need. But the world has become run by the rich and uses our feeble minds
My wife is a system architect and this is...just such a thing. She specializes in basically coming in and cutting waste and bloat out of existing codebases where things just spiraled out of control from more and more being added.
Loving all the discussion on this! Indeed, the size of my figurine may have confounded the first experiment (in the original design, their 'person' was much smaller, but this is the LEGO I had to work with at home and it hadn't occurred to me). I'm also finding it fascinating how big a role language/word use in the puzzles has impacted people differently, with words like "switching" having a different connotation to some people - I hadn't totally thought of that before! Regardless, hope you can appreciate the idea (and the research paper if you have a chance to look at it, in the description notes). It changed my perspective on decision making a lot, and hopefully it will have an impact on some of you as well :)
I did something similar to another person in the comments; rearranging the squares which requires 3 moves vs removing them which requires 4. Sometimes the most efficient solution is neither adding or subtracting.
I think it's actually demonstrating the overall point in a more meta way - people don't tend to think of subtractive solutions because in a lot of cases, *it's not obvious that a subtractive solution is even an option*. A word like "build" or "construct" automatically implies that you are adding something, and that type of framing in an initial scenario basically rules out options like "remove" or "streamline". Perhaps the way we get people to be more open to subtractive solutions is to use more 'neutral' words like "optimize" or "improve".
The role of language shouldn't be surprising in a puzzle that is explained with words. And I'm pretty sure _"switch"_ does not mean _"add or subtract"_ under any circumstances. It would be more genuine to just admit that you made an error.
@@JuanPablodelaTorre His language could be interpretted two different ways. Switching the location vs switching the color. Unfortunately this led to hang ups for many (including myself), but he wasn't *wrong* with his phrasing it was just incomplete.
@@LordMajicus very true I think he certainly had a valid point overall.
For the symmetrical ones I was thinking you had to move some squares around, I didn’t even think to add or subtract them
me too. him saying switching squares instead of changing squares was very misleading
Sameee
@@SkylarsTerribleMemes I took it more as "switching squares on/off", which is the only reason I thought of removing the squares (i.e. switching the square off) in the first place
@@nightfury2986 i thought of it as like physically swapping two squares, which wouldn't even work because some of the patterns aren't divisible by 4
It's very misleading, why would I make up my own rules on a puzzle that is presented to me?
"By SWITCHING any of the squares". I assumed you couldn't just make some disappear.
I took it as switching a square between on (green) or off (white)
@@jazminramirez5291 yep due to the phrasing he used...
@@jazminramirez5291
I thought the same thing and realized that since the number of squares weren’t multiples of four for the other three puzzles, then it was impossible.
I assumed we were moving the green blocks around...
@@gonzalezm244 I just aimed for as symmetrical as possible, rather than perefect symmetry every time. I was also still thinking about the previous building question, and therefore was inadvertently seeing the green blocks as balancing something on top of them, therefore where perfect horizontal and vertical symmetry wasn't possible I was settling for a diagonal symmetry compromise that would still balance the imaginary thing that was on top (an only realised that that was what I had done when I went back to that point in the video after reading this thread). Following the extra rules I unwittingly added to the question I never moved more than 3 blocks to a new location, and only had an odd assymmetrically placed block left over on the last of the four grids.
lol I feel cheated on this.
1) I'm positive that lego man isn't going to fit under the roof piece by removing that block.
2) I totally thought "Switch any of the squares" meant I could only change the position of the squares, not flip square locations between green/white values. :\
Yeah, this dude is a joke..
Providing solutions to questions not even asked lol
Was looking for that comment.
Dito!
"Improve the course without spending a lot of money". Who's the judge, first of all. Secondly, and more importantly, the question implies you have some allotment of money and thus are expected to spend some of it. Adding is somewhat encouraged by this. Also, how much does it cost to remove features?
Shit questions.
totally agree about the lego figure not being able to fit under the roof if you only subtract the red piece
Yeah there’s a problem with that Lego predicament: the left guy, when stood underneath “the roof,” is too tall to remove the one red piece. Therefore, it does not work in this example given one could visually see it would crush the Lego guy
I thought the exact same thing. They gave a restriction and then ignored it...
You know what else. If you remove a brick it reduces the value of you're little structure by 10 cents. Apparently the designers of these puzzles don't understand economics at all.
I moved the red brick to the center to try to balance it
@@spacedoohicky no one is selling the structure though. This is an ACTUAL human phenomenon that exists regardless of economics
@@ConnorVide Value isn't just selling something. Value is the practical function you get out of something. Price is an analogy to value. Otherwise there would be no reason for the puzzle, and solving it would be equivalent to just throwing it away unsolved.
00:50
"by switching any of the squares"
I didn't I could add or subtract. The way you asked it made it sound like I could only move existing squares.
01:13
"make this mini golf course better"
What does that even mean? Is better easier or more challenging?
01:23
"In the Lego example, people are most likely to add a block"
The way the question was phrased I assumed the structure was already built and was were trying to reinforce what was there, not tear off the roof and rebuild it.
If you want better answers you need to be more clear with your questions.
Absolute trash, this video, by a click-baiting narcissist… subscribed to these ages ago but really grossed out by him now and don’t want to watch any more.
Same
tearing off the roof and making a new roof is actually more costly and uneconomic. lol. ofc anyone would think of adding assuming the structure was real. trash
plus, the objective was to make the platform stronger so it wouldn't fall on the guys head, but yet in his method the guy wouldn't have even fit between the gap lol
I think the lego Guy hast to fit in And by removing one Part He doesn' t, so for me IT isn't abvalid solution
You said “by switching any of the squares” and I thought you meant switching them around and changing position. Not adding or subtracting
same. i was like you just flip them around right?? very interesting
Same here!
I was confused that he brought up adding squares it was like "What you were allowed to add squares?"
he should've drawn the patterns on a gridded whiteboard, with a whiteboard marker, and then said "make these patterns symmetrical" instead
THIS! and it is impossible in 3 of the later puzzle because the number green square must be factor of 4
It's a click bait, we're the 51% because we didn't figure out that it's a click bait aiks.
I thought of subtracting or moving blocks on all the suggested puzzles aside from the first lego one, probably due to you presenting a visual with the additional block; it never occurred to me that I was "allowed" to interfere with the premise.
yeah the puzzles weren't defined well enough. If you don't define a problem correctly (even giving ambiguos directives) it's obvious no one can get a correct or smart solution. Probably it was just a way to get the viewer attention.
Anyway second half of the video was interesting
@@Ckombactman these are problems that ASAP science didn’t create. This is a summary of research.
They’re meant to be vague. To show what you brain naturally thinks of. He even said that when given the option to subtract explicitly, people subtract more often
These questions are honestly just badly worded or have very specific and pedantic solutions.
The lego brick seemed to be perfectly stable without any change
SWITCHING (squares) is a vague term
It may cost money to remove things from the golf course and dispose of the item
etc.
"You're just part of the 49% that has a such a square way of thinking, you can't think out of the box."
Yeah I agree with you this whole video was stupid
also. When they say that people turning white squares into green squares were "adding", how do they know that the people didn't think they were taking away white squares?
The problem with your Lego figure example is that your physical minifig would not fit in the place you have him standing if you remove a block.
thank you!
This!
Because of this, my immediate solution was to take the corner block and move it to the middle. It isn't exactly additive or subtractive.
@@elorahbennett Yeah, my solution was to take one of the top row of blocks (in the middle somewhere) and move it to the corner. No extra blocks needed and the guy still fits.
Asap 'science'
Answers are obvious if “switching” includes removing. Sounded like we can only move them around
Yesss!!! 😂🤦🏾♀️ I didn’t even know how to begin making it symmetrical by moving them around
@@Lexfrmtex well for the first example you could split the square in the top left corner into four smaller squares and place one in each corner of the picture.
@@TheDaniela3112 ye that’s what I did
@@TheDaniela3112 Thats what I did too
He phrased it very poorly and ruined the video for me.
For engineering, I can say that while we like removing elements, the issue usually becomes with backwards compatibility. Especially when people depend on something being a certain way (just try to drop the roof 1 foot on a building).
I thought we couldn’t add or remove things in each problem; I was just trying to rearrange everything
Excactly
LOL same 😆
Me too! 😆
When looking at the golf course, my first question was, "What's wrong with it the way it is?"
Make it "better" in what way? More challenging? Less challenging? More unique in an open ended way?
Exactly… I just moved the angle of the corner piece to 45 degrees, to make it a simple 90 degree shot… then wondered ‘is that what he means by better?’ - obviously, I then added more Dinosaurs.
Ps. This is an absolute trash video. Actually can’t stand to watch him after this one, and didn’t mind him to begin with.
Same lol
Absolutely agree. I just moved the tulips near the water closer to the base, to make the whole scene a bit more beautiful.
It's also kinda making it better, am I wrong?
I just sai IDK
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
Why Do You Type Like This
-canva
Then just take everything away, you can't take more from nothing
That is so true
@@chiranjeevsahoo4960 perfect
Yeah, however by removing that piece, the figure wouldn’t fit underneath anymore. So you excluded this solution from the beginning. The answers you said were wrong were actually better than your answer. Also it is safe to assume that in these kinds of scenarios irl it is much cheaper to add something to support the top and keep it at the same height than lowering the whole thing.
Dude, stop complaining about the puzzle. The point of the video is completely different.
I just though about getting a block from the structure and putting it on top to hold the platform
I’m a beginner coder, and getting used to deleting some code in order to rewriting or optimizing it is one of the most essential things you need to learn out there. The less code u write to solve a problem the better coder you are. One line solution is more appreciated then a ton of text. And yes, I broke my hand petting myself on the back for solving this puzzle with substraction, lol
hi comp sci student here, having more lines of code usually doesn't actually affect the efficiency if the same actual computation is being run. using less variables, optimizing the data structures used, or optimizing the actual algorithm will, but making three lines into one doesn't make a difference because it will be compiled to the same machine code. Using more lines (as long as the runtime and space efficiency is the same) just makes your code more readable. A lot of simple to write code is also really inefficient (ex. nested loops)
I didn't think of subtractive solutions simply because of how badly the riddles were worded lol.
Exactly. It's the puzzle equivalent of a trick question, completely intentionally so. It's worded in such a way as to frame the problem as additive by putting a price on extra pieces used. The solver assumes that the question is about how to add the least number of bricks in the most optimal way, not a question about subtraction. But if we're going to allow "creative, out of the box solutions," then nowhere in the puzzle does it say we cannot move the Lego figure on top of the roof so that the brick doesn't fall on him. These kinds of trick puzzles only serve the ego of the person posing the question and have little to do with the creativity or intelligence of the person asked to solve it.
@@Jason608 very well worded
That's a great insight! And in my experience, this is exactly what you see in the real world. Ask any product manager what suggestions they get. When you need to solve a problem, the question is almost always phrased this way. What can we "do" to solve the problem, not undo. Can we add a feature. Can we add the functionality to do x. People don't think of removing as a natural solution because we often think that things were out in place for a reason without worrying about whether the reason was actually valid
And the solution he gives on the lego one doesn’t even work.
its called advanced clickbait
Was I the only one who was trying to “move” the green squares instead of adding or subtracting?
Nope, I solved them via rearranging as I didn’t even know that subtracting was an option lol
Yeah I didn't even think adding or subtarcting was an option
Same here, I did move the Green Squares to make it look symmetrical
Same
nope
0:51 When you said "switching", I interpreted that as "moving". I was explicitly under the impression that I couldn't add or take away green squares. That made the the others impossible as the number of green squares in each were not a multiple of four. Clear directions are important for puzzles.
On the lego problem specifically, the little figure doesn’t fit in your solution.
So if following the instructions of ‘change the structure so you can add a block and the roof wouldn’t collapse on top of this figure’ you’d have to add blocks instead.
Funny, i moved all the blocks. I generally like to work with the stuff I have and rearrange it.
Same, i moved the blocks in my head, i belived that was what he was asking for
Yea same, I just moved them to make them symmetrical lol
Me too!
Plus that’s only three blocks, hence the most efficient way to do it
Yeah same here
Your solution makes the lego person unable to be under the roof.
Lol make him lie down on the floor
Good. That's more subtraction. The world is already over-populated by at least five billion people.
@@MedEighty
Eight billion.
@@want-diversecontent3887 That escalated quickly!
@@MedEighty 8 billion
This is a good thing to keep in mind when doing creative work, too, such as writing a novel.
It's always helpful to go through what you have already written and ask, "Is this section / scene / sentence / etc important? Would it hurt the story at all if I removed it or reduced it?" Removing / reducing unnecessary filler is always good for a story. As I'm sure we all can think of at least one person if not several who have complained about filler in tv shows, books, games, etc.
I'm so glad to find someone is talking about it.
the lego guy doesn't fit anymore if you take one away...
yeah we got finessed, sorry for FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS!
@@PowerHaters or you could put the lego guy on top
Indeed, plus it involves moving the flat piece and at that point is it even the original structure?
Or you can just subtract the lego guy, no one gets hurt.
thats because in the original experiment the guy was a piece of paper
When you say “switching” it immediately makes you think that eliminating is not possible. The phrasing of the question is usually misleading to a certain extent and combine that with schools that get that mindset that removing is never the option and you have the answer as to what is going on.
It made me think neither eliminating or adding were an option
@Faulty Juice Please rephrase your comment. I don’t understand you at all.
0:47 for the record. I didn’t add or subtract. I took the four squares in the top left corner, and switch each one with an empty square in the other three corners.
You said we had to make it symmetrical by “switching any of the squares”. That gave me the impression that I wasn’t allowed to add or subtract any of the squares.
There is a contradiction here.
I needed to see this video tonight. I’m struggling with the home buying process and don’t want to downgrade my wants list to get into a home, but that’s exactly what I need to do. This video has just helped me become comfortable with that idea. Thank you!!
Just as others pointed out, the language used here is frustrating. The lego question was phrased in a way that almost "forces" you to think about adding blocks. And I had to rewind back multiple times to try to see if I missed anything with the "switching" instructions, again the question is phrased as if you had to switch the position of the colored blocks with another. If these were in line with the language used in the research paper, then I would seriously question the legitimacy of its conclusions
For the Lego puzzle, when you say "confusing language," do you mean how he said to change it and then told you that every extra piece would cost you? Cause I find that interesting. The phrasing misdirects you, priming you to think about minimizing the extra pieces instead of removing pieces. But isn't that how real life works too? You're given a job and told how much extra materials will cost, and you don't necessarily get that extra reminder to consider whether or not you actually need those materials.
Someone else in the comments pointed out that language we use irl, like "construct" or "build," similarly primes us to think about adding rather than subtracting
@@justanotheryoutubecommente2 The confusing language was that he was comparing the LEGO blocks to a real-life construction. In the real world, removing the single support of a roof and then lowering the entire roof would be more costly than simply building a second support for the roof.
"Switching" - switching a square from green to white certainly falls under that term. Positions of square can be switched, but also it's colour.
What about that if you removed the red block, the figure wouldnt fit anymore in the structure, so there was no way of removing it form my perspective. Also, missleading was the fact he pointed at the structure where you can PLACE the peace, its all about how the question was formed. Tests give you a problem with conditions which should be clearly defined in question or a problem, but education system taught us that when those condition arent clear you basicly need to become mind reader, which usualy means you need to include educators way of solving problems as a given condition based on lectures you attended.
The pictures I immediatly wanted to remove rather than add, however the lego example is flawed because you said he needs to fit under it meaning you could not subtract
Yea, his big hair is just slightly higher then the blocks if you remove that one red piece.
@Rocky Robinson 🤣🤣🤣 remove it all
Totally flawed indeed
And the pictures one was also flawed, as "switch" make it sound like the number of white and green blocks needs to remain constant, we're just allowed to swap them around.
Remove the lego guy
2 mathematicians were mailin each other and one of em was like I wish I had more time to write u less
this video is so accurate, i literally read the comments and read "add and subtract", and I literally subtracted in the puzzle.
I got stuck on the squares puzzle cuz you said "switch" squares, so i thought i had to swap them around, not add or subtract.... and quickly realised 3 of them were impossible lol
Ikr. I came to the same conclusion 😁
same
@@NemYan last one is possible by making the inner circle all to the line but clockwise up the line with the 4 squares
66 likes...
@@NemYan Sorry, i was thinking within the 10 moves rule that was mentioned, that you get $1 for completing it but costs 10 cents per move, but then I realized that only applies to the lego puzzle XD oops!
Math teacher: Jason, Why did you leave the whole test blank?
Jason: you see I was thinking about adding extra text but I changed my mind and decided that a subtractive solution would be better
If you erase all the questions, you get a 100% correct test result.
@@Junoswoof Number of correct answers = 0, number of questions = 0. Correct percentage = 0/0 = NaN
Only if the task is to minimize errors
@@matekochkoch isn't that the task of a test?
@@CarolineFarrow normally the task is to provide answers. As far as i remember all tests were formulated with "answer the following..." or "find a solution for..." and not with "avoid errors" .
My brain immediately went to subtract, this was surprising
0:53 "switching" instead of saying that you should have said "changing any of the individual squares" that would fix the confusion with what you mean by "switching" and the fact that at first i thought you could only more the 4 big squared or rotate them... (or maybe say what you cannot do so people still have to figure it out but don't waste time trying to understand the question.
Yeah this is just like one of those dumb riddle videos where the solution is something you didn't know was allowed.
But the whole point of the video is how we assumed it wasn't allowed even though nobody ever said it's not allowed
@@syawkcab He literally says "by switching a block" switching means to replace, not completely remove.
While I completely agree with you, that it did feel like we were a little bit cheated, I think the video was still insightful.
@@trapezoid5810 Switch blocks with Emptiness? 😂
if there are no rules... I don't like mini golf, I choose to flatten the whole thing and put up a taco bell. For the green squares. Paint it black. The legos, super glue it to the new Taco Bell drive thru window. Where's my one dollar?
Did everyone else solve them all?
the problem is the framing of the questions, for example: "how would you improve this mini golf course without spending a ton of money?" well what is a ton money, and what constitutes an improvement, exactly?
Yea for the gold course I thought “this is already good, what is there to change?”. I also think removing stiff would just make the experience worse as there is already so little there.
@@rachelcookie321 I tought of removing the fence to have more challenge, but the picture was shown for such a small amount of time that I didn’t see if it really was a good idea
Yeah it's more of an opinion than a puzzle
Yeah at golf part i was liie " yeah nhaaaa he don't know to make questions"
I thought about moving the small wall around to include the puddle inside the course, it's not addition or substraction
My first job out of college got so mad at me for not adding new code, but instead shrinking the codebase. Their code was written by a bunch of electronics engineers who read a "learn to code in 28 days" book. And so much of what they had written just wasn't needed. But when I was finished, when they wanted to change something, they now had to change it in one location instead of changing it in four hundred locations. And they didn't have to worry about missing any of them anymore.
Thanks, I needed this.
Funnily enough, I thought to just move the awkward pieces inside of other pieces so they wouldn’t be visible, and on the golf course I thought to remove the awkward block
Yep same. For some reason I didn’t think of subtracting something for the Lego problem, though.
I got too caught up in the meaning of "improve" and didn't even notice that block there as a result
0:53. Rather than taking away four, you can move three to three other corners.
I feel far too proud for figuring this out on my own.
@Petalpie Good solution!!
I had thought of that as well, but also does that count as 6 steps or 3?
Yep. He said "switching", which I thought most likely meant swapping two cells with each other, as that would make for a more interesting design problem.
@@DavidMishchenko yeah same, I thought you had to keep the number of green squares the same. It becomes a lot easier if you can add or subtract them.
@@Cannon402
3. Move one block, a second, then a third.
I started understanding this with arguments. Long drawn out paragraph don't work as well compared to a few sentences. But watching this video gave me insight to it
Thank you for getting into the consumption side of this, I was really hoping you would touch on it.
It is important.
You clearly said it couldn't hit his head so removing the piece wasn't possible.
Exactly
0:46 You say SWITCHING squares, as in, you pick two squares and switch their places. You don't say you change the color of individual squares. The wording of this makes the solution later not follow the original prompt.
Yeah, it's a trick question. It isn't a puzzle.
"Switch" the squares can mean both switch places and switch colours.
I like how I misunderstood every single one of these problems so I can’t actually compare My results
As a programmer I have always found it best to make the code as simple as possible, even had teachers praise how easy it was to go through the code and know exactly what everything does. I once tried to make an ambitious program that did all sorts of fancy things then realized the same thing could be achieved with like half the code, went back and rewrote it with that mindset and it worked better than I thought it would. I didn't realize this was some awesome skill I had though and if anything it did feel a little lazy to do it that way
Alright time to remove a pillar supporting my balcony and lower it instead of adding another structure for support.
Update: Turns out when you remove an essential pillar the whole house collapse. And I thought I was being smart.
Just ask one of those kids from the Lego city commercials to go fix the building
Yeah ikr the point of the vid is goos but this is a bad example
and now you cant fit on the balcony just like that lego guy doesnt fit there
This is not it but sometimes I feel like people just make up whatever theory they want to make other people feel stupid and them look smarter
That's why people study architecture 🤦♀️. Some pillars or wars are used to support the building or certain structures but some are for decoration or to make rooms, separate apartments etc.
when you took away the block, the lego guy doesn’t fit under the platform!
If the goal there is to prevent the ceiling from touching the minifig's head, removing the red block doesn't work because the minifig is too tall to stand beneath the roof if the red block wasn't elevating it higher.
for some reason I assumed conservation on the block puzzles so I was just trying to move then rather than add/subtract
What do you mean for some reason he literally said switch
I think the reason we try to write more is because at school there was a word limit
Shut up Clarence 😍
im glad other people are calling him out on the phrasing of the questions
a big part of GOOD science is asking the right questions and checking how what you asked affected your results.
theres a huge difference between "what would you add" vs "what would you change" vs "what would you switch"
I think the best way to phrasing the question would be "what would you do to"
The funny thing is was I was like "If only I could get rid of it" come to find out I could of XD. Either way I learned something new also someone being "naturally smarter" seems somewhat silly someone may learn something quicker but learning is always good just for anyone who feels bad about that.
0:51 "by switching" I thought it was about rearranging the blocks that are already there. I inmediately thought, symmetry is impossible for a number of blocks that isn't a multiple of 4.
Exactly! I'm glad someone else saw the math in this.
Why? Why multiple of four?
@@coldfrenchfry5181 cuz theres four ¨sides¨
What happens if instead of adding or subtracting someone changes the arrangement of the parts?
yes
I like how your videos have been more self aware recently.
I found this very interesting. I actually did not add or subtract to the problems you brought up in the beginning I just moved things around and kept all pieces there.
The symmetrical one, the solution of removing blocks is more operations then moving. 3 moves in the first diagram moving to the edges vs 4.
But you are adding a rule of being able to move stuff around. You switch 3 green pieces to white, then switch 3 white pieces to green, which is 6 movements. If "switching" was changing two tiles between themselves, other variants would be unsolvable. Unless, you consider "switching" as both switching two tiles around and switching the color of a tile by itself. Better written rules is the solution in the end :D
@@SunnyOst yeah absolutely. If you treat move as atomic operation (a single operation) then it's simpler if not then definitely 6.
@@SunnyOst but the guy in the video litteraly said 'switching' not adding or subtracting so this should be the only and best possible way. But tbh the question was just very stupidly told
@@Basb04 You are switching the colors of the tiles. White doesn't mean an empty space with no tile, it means a white tile is there. But I agree, the way they presented all the problems pushed the solutions in certain directions and that is an issue
I think we’d feel bad to alter what’s given to us when trying to solve a problem, it kinda feels like you’d be destroying what has already been done by someone else (at least that’s how I feel about it). Still fascinating though!
very interesting thought
I mean, yeah, I expect that guy has his structure that way for a reason and doesn't wanna flatten it
That’s what I thought for the university one. You can’t just go in and say “you’re doing everything wrong, get rid of this”
I just thought to centralized the support, or even move it toward the weight-bearing edge on the first one. That is to say moving, instead of adding or subtracting.
heuristic as an adjective also refers to teaching someone to teach themselves and i've always loved that.
but then the lego man can't stand there right?
@Big Smoke This is the kind of problem solving this world needs
@Big Smoke we’re working on it ;)
in the words of Albert Einstein:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex ... it takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication indeed!
the fact that this man organized his junk drawer for this. y’all better like the video
I also had the similar instinct of moving (instead of adding or subtracting) the block around. Even though I personally am pretty conscious about trying not to add too much (or at least adding with intention), this video brought up a very interesting and applicable point - I often don’t think of subtractive solutions, which means that I might be missing out on some very valid of important solutions. My takeaway from this video is not that we ALWAYS must subtract, but that instead of defaulting to adding or moving, we should also consider subtracting. Thanks so much for a very interesting video that *added* a new perspective that can guide me in my decision making process.
I moved things around rather than taking them away or adding anything. What does that say about me? Lol
Nothing about you, just that the green block puzzle was worded a bit weirdly. It seems that most people seem to think that he meant you had to move around the blocks you already had. But I'm guessing he went with that wording because "by adding or subtracting" would then make the solution too obvious.
I mostly used rearranging solutions instead of removing of adding
talking about the additive behavior and I had a memory of using candy to do addition problems makes me wonder well for me lol
In regards to the coding example, that is precisely the reason why learning to refactor is so important to developers.
Refactoring in this context means re-evaluating existing code to reduce its size or optimize the process by removing duplicates.
Me, who suggested we move the roof, so that the red block is in the middle: 👁👄👁
And I thought of moving the red block that holds up the roof.
@@Donnerwamp yeah, that’s what i thought too
Same here
@@Donnerwamp me too, of moving it to the middle of the roof
I thought that at first then I thought to completely take it away
Moral of the story. Get rid of the problem so there’s no problem in problem solving
@Lily GR Excellent idea, if it's a problem that you can just eliminate!
I love this channel so much ! 💓💓
The Lego womans head sticks over the blue and yellow block so removing the red means that the lego woman is smacking in the head, you just killed her
"I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." - Bill Gates
The easiest/laziest way is to always remove off any problem
As an engineer my first thought was to move the brick to the middle. However now you've shown I can crush people I just remove all the bricks and sandwich the two grey squares together
I also thought about moving it to the middle 🤔
My room is a mess and I’ve been wanting to get organizers for like a month now but I’ve been putting it off and I’m so glad because it would’ve just created more clutter 😩😩
for the symmetry puzzle i didn’t add or subtract, i was trying to rearrange the off squares to make it symmetrical
Lego puzzle: Move the minifig somewhere else.
Squares puzzle: "Switching" means swapping positions, so adding or subtracting green tiles is illegal (that's not connotation, that's just language); if you're talking about flipping tiles that are green on one side and white on the other, you failed to mention that. As you basically need the same quadrant four times, only the first puzzle can actually be solved, because the others don't have a number of green squares divisible by 4. As for that first puzzle, swap the green tiles of the top left block with white tiles in the other quadrants' corners so there's one green tile in each corner, taking only 3 actions and making for a more efficient solution than even removing tiles, which would take 4.
Mini golf puzzle: Sell it. Big improvement to me, and it earns money instead of spending it.
1:50, the lego figure doesn't fit in anymore if you do it this way, also I removed the blocks or swapped their position in example 2, and where is the solution to the golf course? I get the main message of the video, but it just isn't true for me
I fully agree
Yeah he totally biased any results by improperly presenting them. Sorta meta though.
I figured that if that Lego structure was a real building then that space being held up by the block was there for a reason and removing it would impede its intended function; therefore the most efficient solution would be to move the support closer to the center of the roof...not awkwardly add more supports.
The way the green square puzzles were worded specifically only allowed moving. In that case, only the first puzzle shown can be completed at all, due to the other puzzles having unsymmetrical blocks not divisible by four.
This is definitely like my mom when she doesn't have any space at home, she just throws everything away, she never adds more storage, also my mom has always taught me to 'learn to do things with what you have, don't add to it because it's going to be costly,' also throw everything away, she'd thrown everything I kept as a kid away, so there goes my memories and toys, all thrown away.
Would the roof piece of the lego structure actually fit when you remove the red piece? Would it not be sitting on top of the man's head? Also, usually people who are building a structure already have things measured out to the size they want it to be. Removing the red block changes the height by quite a bit.
mr Virgin James
@@kanyebrazzers9179 Hahah, definitely not. Although it has been a while.
I thought of just moving the red square to the middle, for the green squares I moved them around, and I just moved that wooden stick from the corner to stick out of the top wall at an angle. Instead of adding or subtracting since I thought I had to keep it equal lol
the block one I thought "why not just take the red block" lol the squares I was thinking on moving one at each corner but the other ones seemed impossible so I was thinking "can we take out stuff?"
Kinda sad but I think additive solutions have been ingrained in us because subtractive solutions come across as more ‘lazy’. The organising one for example when I tell my mum I want to throw certain things out instead of getting organisers she says I’m just being lazy and wasteful. When in reality I probably won’t use them anymore.
What if your answer was by moving what was already there? Is that still additive?
0:52 if you say "switching" it sounds to me, that i am not allowed to remove or add something and just move the squares around
3:09 The revelation that I did watch a Ted talk and listened a podcast about this subject but chose to continue watching your video ...
You could of removed the entire lego structure.
Yep. It's like - Imagine you're in a building on fire. You have no way to escape. What do you do?
- stop imagiing.
I know you said you're not a coder, but it's actually 10 times harder to remove a feature than adding a new one
that depends entirely on what you're adding or removing.
@@Cannon402 ok, true, in general, it's 10 times harder.
I was thinking “why not remove the support block?” And it actually wasn’t that bad of an idea
This problem gas plagued me. When i used to create essays in HS. I could fill out all the info the teacher would want in 2 - 4 paragraphs. When the essay was a required 3 pages.
This goes to stuff like global warming. "We have to make cars more efficient to save the world" when in reality we would be a healthier species if used less of the appliances we think we need. But the world has become run by the rich and uses our feeble minds
Fightclub: "The shit you own, ends up owning you" lived with that in mind ever since.
Gives credence to the old engineering saying "the best part is no part"
I am addicted to learning
Books, videos, courses, podcasts, I just can't have enough of them, I need help
My wife is a system architect and this is...just such a thing.
She specializes in basically coming in and cutting waste and bloat out of existing codebases where things just spiraled out of control from more and more being added.