This just came to mind: the reason that it’s the wrong way to go about solving problems is that you want to solve the largest problems (well, per resource) and not just solve any random problem. Like, there is a problem that my shoes are currently untied, and I don’t want to bend down or spend 10 seconds to tie them, but it’s not very important.
So if you want to solve the most important problems, you should start with the problem and then work backwards for what solutions you might wish existed. I think the mere fact that people often talk about forecasting as the solution they are seeking to apply, whether that be Sentinel or whoever, is evidence that things are going wrong.
There is one, and I think is the main flaw of the presented argument: A lot of problems are only considered pressing because of our expectations regarding the future. Improving the latter is not “solving anything”, but simply clearing up priorities.
I’m reconsidering this point. It seems intuitive, but what is the strongest argument that this is “wrong”?
This just came to mind: the reason that it’s the wrong way to go about solving problems is that you want to solve the largest problems (well, per resource) and not just solve any random problem. Like, there is a problem that my shoes are currently untied, and I don’t want to bend down or spend 10 seconds to tie them, but it’s not very important.
So if you want to solve the most important problems, you should start with the problem and then work backwards for what solutions you might wish existed. I think the mere fact that people often talk about forecasting as the solution they are seeking to apply, whether that be Sentinel or whoever, is evidence that things are going wrong.
There is one, and I think is the main flaw of the presented argument: A lot of problems are only considered pressing because of our expectations regarding the future. Improving the latter is not “solving anything”, but simply clearing up priorities.