zlacker

>>bookof+(OP)
Quoting from the article "But here’s a question about Papua New Guinea: how many people live there? The answer should be pretty simple."

That sounds a very strange expectation. Most of my life post university I realized most of questions have complex answers, it is never as simple as you expect.

If the author would check how things biology and medicine work currently, I think he will have even more surprises than the fact that counting populations is an approximate endeavor.

>>vladms+Xc
> Most of my life post university I realized most of questions have complex answers, it is never as simple as you expect.

I find the complication comes from poor definitions, poor understanding of those definitions, and pedantic arguments. Less about the facts of reality being complicated and more about our ability to communicate it to each other.

>>jkling+kh
I’ve noticed the inverse as in the more I understand something, the less “simple” it looks.

Apparent simplicity usually comes from weak definitions and overconfident summaries, not from the underlying system being easy.

Complexity is often there from the start, we just don’t see it yet.

>>apercu+wj
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Simplicity comes from strong definitions, and "infinite" complexity comes from weak ones.

If you're always chasing the next technicality then maybe you didn't really know what question you were looking to answer at the onset.

>>jkling+Gm
>If you're always chasing the next technicality

This sounds like someone who has never studied physics.

"Oh wow, I figured out everything about physics... except this one little weird thing here"

[A lifetime of chasing why that one little weird thing occurs]

"I know nothing about physics, I am but a mote in an endless void"

---

Strong or weak definitions don't save you here, what you are looking for is error bars and acceptable ranges.