>- Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.
I think the point is that you should view cars as a physical object composed of engineered subsystems instead of as a cultural phenomenon.
This is precisely what it is. The problem is that people view historical success as a starting point (a "shoulder" of a giant) and work from there, rather than what need or problem the giant was solving, and it's requirements.
See: the example given of "Foursquare for hikers". Break down the needs of hikers from a social perspective, and start from there.
Similarly, break down the power needs of a car. Perhaps a battery isn't even the best way to proceed. Really, you just need power. Thinking a battery is the way to go is already making an assumption that other devices' success with battery power translates to "all problems requiring mobile power work best with batteries". That may not be the case.
I think the point is that you should view cars as a physical object composed of engineered subsystems instead of as a cultural phenomenon.