The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

Post by maccard » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:01 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #336

maccard wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack, teams, vs code, miro, excel, rider/intellij, outlook, photoshop/affinity are all applications I use every day that take 20+ seconds to launch. My corporate VPN app takes 30 seconds to go from a blank screen to deciding if it’s going to prompt me for credentials or remember my login, every morning. This is on an i9 with 64GB ram, and 1GN fiber. On the website front - Facebook, twitter, Airbnb, Reddit, most news…

That sounds like a corporate anti-virus slowing everything down to me. vscode takes a few seconds to launch for me from within WSL2, with extensions. IntelliJ on a large project takes a while I'll give you that, but just intelliJ takes only a few seconds to launch.

Post by titzer » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:08 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #112

ngneer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment and analysis that most humans prefer short term gains over long term ones. One correction to your example, though. Dynamic bounds checking does not solve security. And we do not know of a way to solve security. So, the gains are not as crisp as you are making them seem.

Bounds checking solves one tiny subset of security. There are hundreds of other subsets that we know how to solve. However these days the majority of the bad attacks are social and no technology is likely to solve them - as more than 10,000 years of history of the same attack has shown. Technology makes the attacks worse because they now scale, but social attacks have been happening for longer than recorded history (…

Post by rpnx » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #217

caseyy wrote: post #91

There is an argument to be made that the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software about as well as it buys pristine software. And one of them is the cheapest software you could make. It's similar to the "Market for Lemons" story. In short, the market sells as if all goods were high-quality but underhandedly reduces the quality to reduce marginal costs. The buyer cannot differentiate between high and low-quality g…

The dumbest and most obvious of realizations finally dawned on me after trying to build a software startup that was based on quality differentiation. We were sure that a better product would win people over and lead to viral success. It didn’t. Things grew, but so slowly that we ran out of money after a few years before reaching break even. What I realized is that lower costs, and therefore lower quality, are a compe…

Post by mieubrisse » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:10 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #217

caseyy wrote: post #91

There is an argument to be made that the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software about as well as it buys pristine software. And one of them is the cheapest software you could make. It's similar to the "Market for Lemons" story. In short, the market sells as if all goods were high-quality but underhandedly reduces the quality to reduce marginal costs. The buyer cannot differentiate between high and low-quality g…

The dumbest and most obvious of realizations finally dawned on me after trying to build a software startup that was based on quality differentiation. We were sure that a better product would win people over and lead to viral success. It didn’t. Things grew, but so slowly that we ran out of money after a few years before reaching break even. What I realized is that lower costs, and therefore lower quality, are a compe…

Post by 00N8 » Tue, May 13, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

HappMacDonald wrote: post #174

ngangaga wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Innovative new products would get much rarer without super cheap and scalable compute, of course". Interesting conclusion—I'd argue we haven't seen much innovation since the smartphone (18 years ago now), and it's entirely because capital is relying on the advances of hardware to sell what is to consumers essentially the same product that they already have. Of course, I can't read anything past the first tweet.

And I'd argue that we've seen tons of innovation in the past 18 years aside from just "the smartphone" but it's all too easy to take for granted and forget from our current perspective. First up, the smartphone itself had to evolve a hell of a lot over 18 years or so. Go try to use an iPhone 1 and you'll quickly see all of the roadblocks and what we now consider poor design choices littered everywhere, vs improvement…