Three Ways to Solve Problems
Key topics
The art of problem-solving is being put under the microscope, with commenters weighing in on the most effective strategies for tackling tricky issues. Some swear by waiting it out, whether that's delaying a response to a provocative email or letting a problem resolve itself, while others advocate for reframing the issue or identifying conflicting goals. A lively discussion ensues, with suggestions ranging from "be first, smart, or cheat" to solving a related problem that yields 80% of the benefits at a fraction of the cost. As the conversation unfolds, nuances like bad faith, lack of good will, and selfishness are raised, adding depth to the exploration of problem-solving approaches.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
46m
Peak period
18
0-6h
Avg / period
6.3
Based on 25 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 21, 2025 at 9:35 AM EST
20 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 21, 2025 at 10:21 AM EST
46m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
18 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 24, 2025 at 3:39 PM EST
17 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Aka "quickfix" or "hack".
https://blog.onepatchdown.net/philosophy/2023/10/03/four-pil...
Not when it’s applicable in the situation but if you use it in your toolbox it’s very easy to overapply, if you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail style.
Use it critically
I find that after I do that, once I have a solution for everything else, a less-general solution to the sub-problem is often sufficient to keep the global solution valid.
To try to come up with an example, let's say we set as our goal to completely automate a process X, which consists of 10 subprocesses. Let's say we fairly quickly automated steps 1-9, but the 10th is tricky.
But we now realize the 10th step was only really necessary for certain edge cases, which we now realize we are fine not handling. So we "if" them away and now have a process that is 100% automated, even though it is different from what we originally wanted to achieve.
Perhaps a bit of the magic and allure disappears by pulling back the curtain: it sounds like an instance of analyzing and breaking down the problem into smaller ones; solving those pieces as you go along; further breaking them down as necessary; and tossing aside the nuts that are too tough to crack.
Second method is 6 steps: Intel, intel, intel, always be gathering intel. Clear mind, set aside emotions. Clear vision of what I want, the more clear and detailed, the more likely I'll get the result I want. Detailed plan to get from current reality to vision. Execute plan. Debrief: what worked, what mistakes, etc.
I worked for one of Fragner's start-ups and it was an unmitigated disaster in all ways.
He secretly recorded a meeting with myself.
The world isn’t a perfect-information game, and many “problems” are defined under uncertainty.
(Yes, I realize there are various browser accessibility tools, reader modes and even custom CSS overrides, but I'd prefer not being forced to force those things on for all sites - because it means that "bit of visual variety and personal expressiveness" no longer exists for increasing numbers of visitors.)