Comment by vvpan
8 days ago
Off-topic about the Nassim Nicholas Taleb opening: Does anybody else feel like he just restates obvious things in a more formalized and somewhat pompous way? I do not mind formalization but I feel like I am supposed to swoon over it as if some profound truth, that was not already implied in our every day thinking, was being revealed.
I don't think it is obvious to everyone that a 20 year old laptop had a better survival chance over the next year than a new one.
Most people think old is more fragile.
Sometimes it is though (e.g. parts for a plane need to be replaced every X hours of service)
at some point is it even the same laptop? I don't think the original laptop has a better chance of surviving
It's not strictly THAT or ONE laptop though. It's the concept of old Thinkpad laptops in general: since there is already a big enough refurbishment market active, parts will still be produced or stored and sold, thus permitting that kind of laptop to be repaired and survive. Even if you apply the "ship of Theseus" logic, it won't matter. It won't be the same original Thinkpad, but it will still be a Thinkpad (flies like a Thinkpad, sings like a Thinkpad...)
> just restates obvious things in a more formalized and somewhat pompous way
That's sort of the premise of his Black Swan idea, namely that extraordinary things appear quite obvious in retrospect.
I've read a few of his books, including Antifragile that's referenced in TFA, and he does go beyond merely restating (or formalizing) the obvious.
But then again perhaps such things are not generally obvious and need to be stated explicitly, we just happen to be part of a subset that is more aware of them.