The R&D 100 Awards were established in 1963. They were originally known as
the I-R 100s, in keeping with the original name of the magazine, Industrial
Research. In 1963, the winners were picked by a panel of outside judges
selected by the publisher and editor. No entries were required, and only U.S.
companies could win. A formal entry procedure was established in 1964 and final
judging was made by the magazine's editors (with the advice of outside experts).
The first non-U.S. winners came along in 1965.
Over the years, the R&D 100 Awards have recognized winning products with
such household names as Polacolor film (1963), the flashcube (1965), the
automated teller machine (1973), the halogen lamp (1974), the fax machine
(1975), the liquid crystal display (1980), the printer (1986), the Kodak Photo
CD (1991), the Nicoderm antismoking patch (1992), Taxol anticancer drug (1993),
lab on a chip (1996), and HDTV (1998).
Products must have been available for sale or licensing during the calendar year
preceding the judging. Entries are due March 1, 2007--,
of the year following eligibility. (Thus, products available for sale or licensing
in calendar 2006 are eligible for the 2007 contest.) Judging is completed by late
May, and winners are notified in July.
Additional information about the R&D 100 Awards may be obtained by
contacting:
Tim Studt
Editor-in-Chief
Program Chairman
R&D 100 Awards R&D Magazine
2000 Clearwater Drive
Oak Brook, IL 60523
USA
The judging process for the R&D 100 Awards has been designed for one purpose
only: to pick the 100 most technologically significant new products from among
the entries.
Our goal is to make each entry a winner. This is impossible, of course, since
we receive many more than 100 entries. But it describes the spirit in which the
entries are judged.
Naturally, good presentation can improve your chances of winning, and the
following pages contain suggestions about presentation techniques. However, even
the fanciest looking entry will not win if the product itself does not deserve
an R&D 100 Award. Remember, it's the product that wins, not the entry. More
on this in the section, "What We Look for in an
R&D 100 Awards Winner."
Completing the Entry
Depending on the product, we estimate it takes 10 to 40 hours to complete the
entry form. That includes filling out the form, creating any additional exhibits,
and putting everything together into a well-presented document.
All entries received by February 1, 2007, will be reviewed by the editors
to see if any items have been omitted or if additional information might help
the judges. If you meet the Early Bird deadline, you'll be notified by fax as
to how you can improve your entry. You have until March 1, 2007, to submit
additional information.
Joint Entries
There is no limit to the number of organizations that can be listed as joint
developers on an entry, but you should include only those organizations that
made a significant contribution to its creation.
Multiple Entries
You and your organization may enter as many new products as you wish. Each will
be judged on its own merits.
On the other hand, sheer numbers of entries won't necessarily guarantee you a
winner. Don't submit large numbers of entries in the hope that one or two will
win. Target your entries carefully. Use a "rifle" approach, not a
"shotgun" approach.
Requests for additional information
To judge each entry fairly, it is often necessary for us to ask for additional
information. Usually we will fax you a list of questions or ask for specific
information -- another photo of the product, case studies, more technical data, a
comparison to other technology. We try to give you a reasonable amount of time
to respond, but sometimes we need an immediate reply.
If you are asked to provide additional information, please reply as quickly
as possible. If you fail to respond, we will have to judge your entry on the
information at hand. This could hurt your chances of winning.
Judging Process
All entries are initially judged by outside experts. Outside judges are chosen
from among professional consultants, university faculty, and industrial
researchers with superior expertise and experience in the areas they are
judging. They must also be completely unbiased and have no conflicts of interest
with any entries they are judging.
More than 50 outside judges participate every year, and we
are always eager to add to our roster. To be considered as
a judge, please send your resume and a cover letter listing
your qualifications and areas of expertise to Tim Studt ,
Program Chairman (fax: 630-288-8700).
Based on the outside judges' votes and written comments, the editors of R&D
Magazine sit in final judgment of the entries.
This process usually begins in early April and is completed
in June. The decision of the editors is final.
A word of warning! Don't lie on your entry!
We assume that all submitters take to heart the signed affirmation
that "all information submitted as a part of, or supplemental
to, this entry is a fair and accurate representation of the
product."
However, we recognize that this is a competition, and we do expect you to put
your best foot forward. Sometimes, however, this can result in claims being
stretched or exaggerated; at other times, it can mean that important information
- say, about competitive products - gets omitted or unreasonably downplayed.
One of the judges' main tasks is to bring their own expertise and experience
to bear in evaluating the veracity of entries. If they suspect that you're not
telling the whole truth or have left out data that could diminish your claim,
they will judge your entry accordingly.
Note: We make every effort to clarify ambiguous or what may seem to the
judges to be misleading information, but it is not always possible to do this.
If you need guidance in this area, fax your questions to us at: R&D 100
Awards, 630-288-8700, or via e-mail: tim.studt@advantagemedia.com.
Product Categories
There is no specific number of winners in any category. If it turned out, for
some strange reason, that the 100 best products were all microscopes, they'd all
win. In fact, there are no categories. The groupings shown in the magazine are
done for the reader's sake. There are no quotas for, say, consumer products or
software. Every entry competes against every other entry. As it turns out, we
get such a wide variety of entries that we get winners in many different
categories, although the number in each category (and even the categories
themselves) can change every year.
A Final Word on Judging
Frankly, judging so many technically diverse products is not easy. That's why we
take nearly three months to do it, and why we rely on the input of our outside
experts. We want every entry to be judged as fairly as is humanly possible.
To increase your chances of winning, put yourself in the judges' shoes.
Imagine yourself judging your own entry. Would you believe every statement?
Would you want more information? Is the material presented in the most coherent,
easy-to-understand fashion? Are your charts, tables, photographs, and supporting
information useful and understandable? Can you stand behind every point? Do you
make an effective argument?
Better yet, ask someone whose opinion you respect to read your entry. Were
you able to convince that person? If you can't convince yourself or someone
whose judgment you trust, you should probably rework your entry.
Important: Because such a diversity of products is entered, you should assume
that the judges will not be as expert in your technical area as you are. You
need not be condescending or simplistic in your responses, but you should make
your entry as easy to understand as possible. We encourage you to be technically
sophisticated, but make your answers clear to a nonexpert!
Remember: If you have a specific question, please call for advice or fax us
at 630-288-8700. We really do want to make you a winner!
Over the years, we have been asked on numerous occasions: "What do you
look for in an R&D 100 entry? What makes a winner?"
Our reply is simple: We are looking for the 100 most technologically
significant products of the year.
Defining "Significance"
The key criterion is "technological significance." We often say that
we're looking for major breakthroughs. A cure for cancer or AIDS. An engine that
runs on water. A safe, cheap method for cleaning up toxic waste. A vehicle that
can fly 800 passengers from New York to Tokyo in two hours. A device that would
cut automotive accidents, or one that would reduce workplace injuries. A
pollution-free herbicide that would increase crop production in Third World
countries.
Of course, most new products hardly come close to these achievements.
Nonetheless, we're looking for products and processes that can change people's
lives for the better, improve the standard of living for large numbers of
people, save lives, promote good health, clean up the environment, etc.
Important: Products or processes that solve very specialized or circumscribed
problems could be judged less significant than those that meet larger, more
broad-based needs.
For example, a new scientific instrument that only benefits a few scientists
in a narrow field of interest would have difficulty competing against a device
with much broader application. It would depend on how significant the two fields
of interest were and how much the technical improvements contributed to the
success of each device.
Moreover, these improvements must be attributed to significant breakthroughs
in technology. In general, this means your product should exhibit multiple
levels of improvement - 53 times faster, 103 greater throughput, 503 times more
accurate - or, preferably, orders of magnitude improvement over existing
technology. Again, we're looking for "leapfrog" gains in performance,
not expected, incremental improvements.
Of course, "significance" often depends on the technology in
question. For example, a digital oscilloscope that captures only 5% more
samples/sec than current oscilloscopes probably would not be considered a
significant technological improvement; this would be an "expected" or
incremental improvement. But a photovoltaic cell that could generate a 5% gain
in energy efficiency over current PVs probably could be considered quite
significant.
To a certain extent, it is harder for certain kinds of products to win.
Products in mature technologies will have a more difficult time demonstrating
the kinds of quantum leaps of technological improvement that the judges look
for. It's hard to find major breakthroughs in, say, chromatography, for example,
since most of the big advances were made decades ago. Nonetheless,
chromatography-related products still win, but they must make dramatic gains to
do so.
Software is another example of an area where most improvements are
incremental. New software would have to make dramatic leaps to be judged
significant. But again, a number of software programs do just that every year,
and they win.
Conversely, products in emerging technologies start from a lower base, if you
will, so order-of-magnitude improvements can often be made relatively easily.
Also, certain "hot" technologies may capture the imagination of the
judges, just as space-related products were popular in the late 1960s.
Eventually, of course, these will become mature technologies and the rate at
which they win will slow down.
In sum, there is no magic formula by which various types of products are
judged. The rubric of technological significance continues to be applied by the
judges, no matter what the entry.
Note: Products requiring regulatory approval, such as that from the U.S. Food
& Drug Administration, generally should not be entered until all trials are
completed and final approval is granted. The exception would be a medical device
or drug that has been licensed or used outside the United States, or in a
nonregulated application (such as for veterinary purposes).
The Wow! Factor
As the outside judges and editors review all the entries, they are also looking
for what we've come to call Wow! Factor. These are products that leapfrog
current technology, that provide simple, elegant solutions to complex or
long-standing technical or practical problems - products that are so
interesting, unusual, or clearly superior to existing technology that they make
you say "Wow!" or "How did they do that?"
The Question of Uniqueness
You may believe that your product is unique and that its singularity alone makes
it deserving of an R&D 100 Award. But uniqueness is not necessarily a
virtue. In fact, it may mean that there is no demand for such a product, or that
it is technically trivial. Nor is uniqueness a guarantee of significance in
terms of offering solutions to great problems.
Moreover, few products are truly unique. Most build on existing technology,
which is why we have eliminated the question of uniqueness from the entry form
and why we place so much emphasis on the Competitive Matrix (see below) and the
description of how your product compares to existing technology.
Whether you believe your product to be unique, you must compare it to
existing technology - and there is always something to compare it to.
To take a bizarre hypothetical example: Say you invented a new airplane that
used wood chips for fuel, could carry 1,000 people people from London to San
Francisco in three hours, and cost less than $1 million to build - you would
indeed have a unique product! But you'd still have to compare it to existing
technology. How do wood chips compare to jet fuel in terms of cost, efficiency,
cleanliness? How do the load factors compare to today's best airplanes? What
about cost factors? Obviously, you'd have a good story to tell, but merely
saying that your vehicle is "unique" is not enough.
Competitive Matrix
The competitive matrix should show how your product compares to existing
products in terms of the crucial factors involved in the technology. This is
your opportunity to give the judges a quick overview of how your product beats
the competition.
Note: Include only factors crucial to the technology. Don't waste space (and
the judges' time) throwing in every conceivable factor, just to pad your entry.
However, you must list all factors that are indeed crucial to the technology,
even if you don't "win" that particular point. For example, if you
fail to include "hardness" in an entry involving a new alloy, your
entry may be looked upon with suspicion by the judges.
Some typical factors you might want to include:
Note: This is a sample. You are not required to submit this exact comparative
matrix. Instead, provide comparative data in matrix or table form regarding
those factors that are crucial to your product and the technology involved.
Important: We strongly recommend that you include in your matrix a column
that summarizes or explains the importance of the comparative data in each row
(see sample below). This explanation should be a condensed version of your
answer to Question 10C.
Focus on the Benefits
Don't get so involved in the technical aspects of your product that you forget
to emphasize its benefits. This is a common failing in R&D 100 Awards
entries. Certainly you need to describe the technical details, but you must go
beyond that to explain what the numbers mean - and how your product benefits
humankind.
Tip: One place to emphasize benefits is in the section
on Principal Applications (Question 11A) and 10C
on the online application. It is useful to the judges
if you not only describe the principal applications
of your
product,
but also
the benefits to users that flow from these applications.
This is particularly true if important
applications of the technology were not available before
your product came along. Again, tell the judges why
the applications of the product are important
and how your product makes these applications possible.
That should enhance your product's significance in
the minds of the judges.
Sample Competitive Matrix
Product Feature
Your Product
Competitor A
Competitor B
Competitive Advantage
Cost to provide
0
$75,000
$100,000
No additional cost
Maintenance costs/yr
$380
$750
$850
Less costly to maintain
Expected lifetime (yr)
25
10
15
Reduces total amortization of system
Inertial starting ability (lb-ft squared)
1000
40
60
Very high inertial load capability
Evidence and Use of the Product
You must show that the product truly exists in marketable form. Do not submit
products for which you are just now determining its marketability.
Proof-of-concept models, breadboards, or laboratory experiments are not
acceptable. Wait until you have a "real" product before entering the
competition.
Photographs of the product or other proof of existence must be included. For
software entries, you may include a copy of the program; if this is impossible,
include descriptive screen shots of the program.
Other examples of evidence you can provide to show the product's existence
are:
The best evidence you can show is actual sale or use of the product. Include
sales data, receipts, or customer lists if this is appropriate (you may mark
this information proprietary). You must show evidence that the product is
commercialized.
Tip: If it is possible for you to include a physical sample of your product,
by all means do so. This could enhance your chances of winning by giving the
judges tangible evidence of what your product looks like and how it performs.
Videotapes/DVDs
Whenever possible, we recommend that you include a short (5- to 10-minute)
videotape or DVD of your product or process at work. This is especially useful for
inventions that are so big it is impossible to ship them, or for processes that,
by their very nature, exist only as they are in action.
Please note: There is no need to make your production elaborate! In fact, some of
the better ones we've seen have been done with home camcorders. All we want is
documentation of your product or process. We just want to see how it works.
So, don't get too fancy. You're going for an R&D 100 Award, not an Emmy!
Don't spend a lot of money hiring a professional video producer. You can make
duplicate copies by linking two VCRs or computers. You should be able to do this in a few
hours for the cost of the videotapes/DVDs.
Government Labs
Government research facilities in the U.S. and certain other countries are
prohibited from competing with private industry. They cannot manufacture actual
products for sale to the public or industry. They can, however, license their
technology to industry.
For this reason, products or technologies submitted by government labs must
be "available for order" or license to the private sector during the
year of eligibility.
In addition to the technology being available for order or license, your
entry will be strengthened if you can show more tangible evidence of
private-sector interest, such as the following:
Do Patents Matter?
Yes and no. Yes, in that a patent is one more piece of evidence of the potential
viability of the product or process. No, in that a patent is not a product in
itself.
You should include copies of your patents in an appendix. We also ask for
information about competing patents to help us judge the comparative benefits of
your product over existing technology.
But remember, merely having a patent without having a product available for
sale or licensing will not win you an R&D 100 Award.
Completing the Summary
The Summary is your opportunity to make your final "summation to the
jury." Here's your chance to reinforce your key points, emphasizing how
your product benefits humankind, how it solves significant problems, and why it
is important.
Tip: We recommend that you try to summarize your "argument" in one
or two sentences. You may take additional space for further argument, but try to
encapsulate your summary in that brief statement. Imagine yourself "writing
up" the description of your winning product in R&D Magazine, in
a press release, or in a prospectus to investors.
Another approach is to make your key points in a series of highlighted items.
Use boldface or italic type to make your key points stand out.
Another way to approach the Summary is that you're trying to make it easy for
the judges to justify their decision in favor of your entry. Give them a
convincing argument in favor of your product.
Resubmissions
If your product doesn't win, you can, under certain conditions, resubmit it
another year - provided there has been a major change related to your product.
For example, you may have made significant improvements to the product, to
the point where it is truly a different and new product. Or you may have found
new applications for the original product - new uses that increase its value and
significance. Or it could be that some outside event has enhanced the value of
the original product.
The key point is that, for a product to be resubmitted, there has to have
been some major change with regard to it. Incremental change or improvement will
not be enough to merit reconsideration.
Important: If you are submitting a product that has been judged previously,
you must state as an addendum to your answer to Question 5 ("When was this
product first marketed or available for order?") and tell in detail how you
have improved the product or why conditions have changed that would make it more
significant.
What If You Don't Win?
To protect the integrity of the judging panel, we do not release the comments or
opinions of the judges.
In most cases, entries fail to win because:
Your product was not sufficiently "technologically significant."
There were 100 other better qualified products.
You did not provide enough support for your claims.
Do's and Don'ts of Your Presentation
DO watch your jargon. Certain terminology may be quite familiar to you
and others in your field, but may be unknown to others outside your area of
expertise. We recommend that you define unusual or special technical terms. Or
provide a glossary of terms in an appendix. Don't expect the judges to know
every arcane term in your area of specialization.
DO explain acronyms. Again, don't expect the judges to be familiar
with all the arcane acronyms in your field of specialization. Spell them out in
first reference. If you have many acronyms in your entry supply a list with
their full description. (Put the list in the appendix, and reference it in your
main text.) Remember, too, that acronyms can vary in meaning depending on your
area of interest. PCB, for example, could be polychlorinated biphenyls to a
chemist and printed circuit board to an electrical engineer. Avoid confusion and
ambiguity by spelling acronyms out.
DON'T use two-sided sheets. This practice may seem ecologically
correct, but it poses a considerable annoyance to the judges. Whenever possible,
use one side of the paper only. Obviously, reprints from journals or patent
filings that are two-sided should remain that way. Remember, trees are a
renewable resource. If you're concerned, use recycled paper.
DON'T single space. Put yourself in the judges' shoes. How would you
like to be reading hundreds of pages of single-spaced copy? You'll get a more
sympathetic reading from the judges if you make your entry easy on the eye.
DO use large type. We recommend at least 10-point type. Again, make it
easy for the judges to read.
DO use "bullets" - or number (1, 2, 3) key points. Make your
chief points stand out. Underline key items. Or use italics. Use boldface type
to accentuate important items.
Other visual presentation tips:
Mark key section heads or points of interest with a yellow marker or red
pen.
Do all you can to guide the judges to your most important selling points.
Organize complicated materials into charts, tables, or graphs. Provide
interpretive captions to make your point clear.
DON'T repeat the full text of the questions. It is not necessary to
repeat the full question in your entry. Just give the item number and a short
phrase.
DO include ancillary material - promotional literature, reprints,
advertisements, sales materials, news clippings, etc. - in an appendix. Mark
key points clearly with yellow marker or colored pen. Annotate appropriate
references to these materials in the main part of your entry.
DO sidemark key points. Use a colored pencil or yellow marker to
highlight important information. That will guide the judges to the information
you think is important.
DO include photos and schematics. You don't need to hire Richard
Avedon, but a good photo does help tell the story. Same goes for schematics,
drawings, diagrams, etc. Good visual presentation may enhance (but by no means
guarantees) your chances of winning.
DO put ancillary material - newsletters, advertising brochures, press
releases, news clippings, patents - in an appendix. Reference these
documents in your entry.
DO include testimonials. Customers or users of your product can be
solicited to provide testimonial letters. These letters should describe the
user's relation to you, how the product has been used, and the results. The more
objective and analytical the information, the more it will add to your entry.
Tip: Don't be shy about asking customers or users for testimonial letters.
You'll be surprised to find that they are usually flattered that you asked.
10 Frequently Asked Questions about the R&D 100 Awards
1. How many entries do you get every year? More than 100. Beyond that, we
don't say. In fact, the total number of entries is not meaningful, since we
believe we get enough entries to choose a reasonable representation of the 100
best products of the year.
Moreover, completing a good entry takes a fair degree of time and effort, and
some individuals or organizations may not want to make that investment.
Finally, as the R&D 100 Awards have grown in prestige, researchers may
have become increasingly reluctant to submit products or inventions that, in
their own estimation, probably don't measure up.
The system isn't perfect, but it has worked quite well for more than 40 years.
2. Are some winners more important than others? No. They are all
R&D 100 Award winners. There are no gradations - first and second place, or
gold, silver, and bronze.
3. When will I be notified if I've won? Around July 1, 2007, by fax or
phone, the submitter will be notified. A formal invitation to the awards ceremony
will follow shortly thereafter. You can tell people that you've won as soon as
you've been notified. Generate as much publicity as you can. Tell the world!
4. Why do you charge an entry fee? Running a contest like the R&D
100 Awards costs money. R&D Magazine is a for-profit entity, and we
must cover our costs. Also, charging a reasonable fee weeds out a certain number
of frivolous entries.
5. English is not my first language. Will this hurt my chance of winning?
No! We make every possible consideration for idiosyncracies of language, idiom,
and style, particularly from non-English-speaking entrants. We do suggest that,
if possible, you run your final draft by an English-speaking editor. It will
only enhance your chances of winning.
6. Is winning an R&D 100 Award a guarantee of commercial success?
Not necessarily, although evidence of customer or market acceptance is an
important factor in the judging process. The more you can show that your product
is being accepted in the marketplace, the greater its chances of winning -
provided also that it is "technologically significant." Of course,
it's almost impossible to predict which products will achieve commercial
success.
7. Have you ever made mistakes? Yes. No competition - not even the
Nobel Prizes - is perfect, but over the years we have tried to improve the
judging process every year to guarantee fair treatment for all entries. We feel
confident it results in the most equitable awards program of its kind.
8. Why do some organizations seem to win year after year? For the
obvious reason that they do good research and make good products. Given that
some of these companies and organizations perform billions of dollars worth of
research every year, it would be a bit surprising if they failed to come up with
some winning products on a regular basis.
The less obvious reason is that these organizations take the R&D 100
Awards program seriously. They encourage their research staffs to enter. They
provide help with editing, graphics, and other nontechnical services. They
publicize their winners both inside and outside their organizations.
What surprises us, nonetheless, is how many relatively small or unknown
companies or organizations, even so-called "garage inventors," win
every year. It shows that hard work and creative genius are not the sole domain
of the big research organizations.
9. Do advertisers in R&D Magazine get special treatment?
No. All entries are judged on the same basis, without favoritism. Only the
editorial staff of the magazine is involved in the judging. The use of outside
experts to screen all entries assures equitable treatment for everyone, whether
or not they advertise in R&D Magazine. If an advertiser does happen
to win, you can be assured that it's because the product deserves to win.
10. What do I get for winning? A handsome plaque.
A writeup in the print and online version of the September
issue of R&D Magazine (with
your Web site address so readers
can request more information).
The
opportunity to attend our annual
awards banquet. And, of course,
the admiration of your peers and
colleagues - plus a nice
item for your resume.
A Final Checklist for Your Entry
Did you sign the entry?
Is your entry legible?
Was your entry "first marketed or available for order" during
the year of eligibility? (Question 5)
Did you provide six (6) complete copies of all materials, including
supporting documents and images?
Did you provide backup material, preferably from objective sources, that
verifies the claims you are making for your product?
Is your illustrative material labeled and described so that the judges can
understand what you are showing them?
Did you give complete answers to all of the questions? Omissions will be
viewed with suspicion by the judges.
Did you include a Competitive Matrix?
(Question 10B) This is very important! Provide hard data,
and tell why the numbers show that your product is superior
to existing technology.
Did you demonstrate a real need for your product?
Did you quantify this need, or demonstrate its importance in some other
way the judges can appreciate?
Did you include a photograph, videotape, sample of the product, or other
evidence of its actual existence?
Does your Summary (Question 12) tell the judges how your product will help
humankind, improve people's lives, and contribute to a better world?
Data Big Gulp
July 17,2008
This morning I completed a long-overdue mailbox clean-up. You know, the intensive one that purges three-month-old messages with 300 KB attachments that you thought you were going to need soon but never did.
The effort blew away some 30 Mb of not-really-useful data, greatly simplifying my digital life. Managing the home computer with the 120 GB hard drive is a different altogether. My troubles, however, pale in comparison to those of researchers who sequence genes or study samples using light-sheet fluorescent imaging. They have terabyte problems.
This week’s inaugural meeting of the Information Overload Research Group(IORG) in New York City seems to suggest there is data pandemic, calling this overload the “world’s greatest challenge to productivity.”
Certainly, the monolithic piles of 0s and 1s have already pestered high-level researchers, many of whom are producing monstrous data sets from physics R&D. For example, a Univ. of Chicago team last fall produced the world’s largest compressible, homogeneous isotropic turbulence simulation. The effort generated 154 TB in 75 million files. The transfer of just 23 TB of this data to different computers took three weeks. Government-funded researchers are attempting to build distributed computer grids to help solve what has become a “petascale” problem, but these efforts are still in their infancy.
Even research on data overload itself has burgeoned in the past few years (IORG cites 16 notable studies on email overload since 1999), and most experts recognize that data management and storage will become a significant theoretical and engineering challenge in the coming years. This philosophically recursive R&D work reveals some obvious but still unfortunate findings. For example, an email that is not responded to within 24 hours (often this means an “8-hour” workday) will likely remain unanswered altogether. Companies such as Microsoft are developing probabilistic machine learning tools to help people triage email automatically and reduce the number of unnecessary emails.
No question, interruptions to productivity (such as the one I’m writing now!) are bad for efficiency, but I have a competing theory: the more data you have, the more likely you will find a solution.
You just need to learn how to find what you need. And delete the rest.
