Difference between revisions of "Talk:1952: Backpack Decisions"
(💩) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: I don't believe the bike-shed effect is related, since that would imply that he is focusing on unimportant issues instead of important ones. In this case, the problem is trying to satisfy a number of important needs that are not fully met by any one backpack, forcing him to decide which can be left unsatisfied by any particular backpack. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC) | : I don't believe the bike-shed effect is related, since that would imply that he is focusing on unimportant issues instead of important ones. In this case, the problem is trying to satisfy a number of important needs that are not fully met by any one backpack, forcing him to decide which can be left unsatisfied by any particular backpack. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Yes, you are right. I had the comparison chart in mind and incorrectly connected the dots here. The correct description of the situation is of course [[wikipedia:analysis paralysis|analysis paralysis]]. Snap decisions apparently aren't infallible, either. :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.100|162.158.114.100]] 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:38, 7 February 2018
Great, now I can't decide how to write the transcript 108.162.216.40 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
And I now want a new backpack. I'm fine with the one I have, but *I want a new one dammit!* But I can't decide which one Jdluk (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The knapsack optimization problem is famous for being NP-hard (Knapsack problem). Seems to be an allusion to it. Sebastian --162.158.91.191 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, see below. The knapsack problem is about optimizing the amount of stuff put into something, while Cueball goes through a buying decision process. 162.158.114.100 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This comic is an illustration of the law of triviality aka the bike-shed effect. 162.158.114.100 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe the bike-shed effect is related, since that would imply that he is focusing on unimportant issues instead of important ones. In this case, the problem is trying to satisfy a number of important needs that are not fully met by any one backpack, forcing him to decide which can be left unsatisfied by any particular backpack. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I had the comparison chart in mind and incorrectly connected the dots here. The correct description of the situation is of course analysis paralysis. Snap decisions apparently aren't infallible, either. :P 162.158.114.100 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
