I don't doubt that the banal question in question, is in the original paper. My point was how banal the question was, and how easily answered it is, not where it was.
Many inventions in humanity were "simple modifications" of other things. Why didn't we invent them sooner? The answer is in the post you replied to: because it's totally normal for "obvious" inventions to not be invented for a long time, even when somebody thinks, after the fact, that it's a "simple modification". Indeed, what percentage of humanity is currently searching for Yet Another Eviction Algorithm, and what percentage of that percentage is looking in this direction, instead of one of the hundreds of other directions?
So yes, the question is indeed equivalent to "why didn't we invent [X] sooner", replacing X with any invention that at least 1 person out of billions in the world finds "obvious" or a "simple modification".
Do you have any routines that you've refined over the years? Is every step you take in a routine something you were taught or learned elsewhere? Or did you "invent" part of it yourself?
I know how to make tea or coffee. Should someone take the credit for the fact that I know to start boiling water first, while I get everything else together, because this results in the most efficient use of my time?
My perception of the paper is this analogy isn't too far off. It's not an invention, it's a discovery.
Perhaps not everything is an invention, but I think everything we're talking about here is, including algorithms. In any case, that's just semantics: you can call it a "discovery" if you feel better about it, perhaps even run s/invention/discovery/g on my post.
The points therein still stand: [inventions/discoveries] which at least 1 person in the world thinks (after the fact) are obvious and just a "small modification" of other [inventions/discoveries], usually go [uninvented/undiscovered] for quite some time.
The paper and TFA asks, "why?" But the better question is, "why wouldn't they?" There's no reason to think they would be be immediately [invented/discovered] as soon as all the prerequisites are [invented/discovered] (again, even if someone thinks they're similar), for the reasons described in my above posts.
Many inventions in humanity were "simple modifications" of other things. Why didn't we invent them sooner? The answer is in the post you replied to: because it's totally normal for "obvious" inventions to not be invented for a long time, even when somebody thinks, after the fact, that it's a "simple modification". Indeed, what percentage of humanity is currently searching for Yet Another Eviction Algorithm, and what percentage of that percentage is looking in this direction, instead of one of the hundreds of other directions?
So yes, the question is indeed equivalent to "why didn't we invent [X] sooner", replacing X with any invention that at least 1 person out of billions in the world finds "obvious" or a "simple modification".