Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

bobbylox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#101

Post by ljm »

passwordoops wrote: post #63
blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

Though I appreciate the effort you put into your response, I think you're quibbling and missed the point. His qualm is with companies developing what amounts to a good demo (whether you call it MVP, prototype, Beta product, etc), validate their hypothesis but then call it a finished product. Validation is supposed to be just that, validation. Instead he's arguing companies call that initial validation market success,…

I'm still not convinced on this though. These MVPs are usually a lot less minimal than you would expect for a prototype - far more than just wireframes and a basic POC that you expect to chuck out and rewrite. Might even have a handful of paying users as well.

Since the comparison was made to games development, I think the closer equivalent is an early access release where you're generally paying for a WIP game at a lower price. Money changes hands, you get access to product in return, but there's no guarantee that it would ever be 'finished' or even what 'finished' might mean.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#102

Post by dang »

awesome_dude wrote: post #44
dang wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not bother with that please. We want curious conversation here. Posting interesting and curious things matters infinitely more than spelling. Of course it's always fine to ask for clarification when necessary.

I want to be clear on what the idea being conveyed is, I'm guessing one thing, but the poster says another. That's a bad thing?

Not at all! - like I said, it's fine to ask for clarification. You should just do it in a way that is clearly distinct from chastising someone for typos. That wasn't clear in your post.

I get it now that you didn't mean it as a dig (especially after seeing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42802018) but intent doesn't transmit itself automatically. The burden is on the commenter to disambiguate it. (Lots of past explanation about that here if anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

This doesn't mean that intent has to be stated explicitly—it just has to be clear—especially, clear enough to be distinct from ordinary kinds of internet attack, when those are not what is intended.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#103

Post by jjk166 »

Xelbair wrote: post #56
blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

>A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. man, really? 99% of software is basically glorified CRUD view for some DB. it's nothing novel. If we venture outside of corporate software: most startups do not create anything novel - they just monetize existing businesses in a different(usually more predatory) way, or do X but digital. both usually go for 'virtual monopoly'…

Which is precisely why the point of an MVP is not to demonstrate that something can be built but that someone would pay for it once it is built. Of course it can be built, it's technologically simple. It's not minimum viable tech demo, it's minimum viable product.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#105

Post by awesome_dude »

dang wrote: post #102
awesome_dude wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to be clear on what the idea being conveyed is, I'm guessing one thing, but the poster says another. That's a bad thing?

Not at all! - like I said, it's fine to ask for clarification. You should just do it in a way that is clearly distinct from chastising someone for typos. That wasn't clear in your post. I get it now that you didn't mean it as a dig (especially after seeing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42802018 ) but intent doesn't transmit itself automatically. The burden is on the commenter to disambiguate it. (Lots of past…

> This doesn't mean that intent has to be stated explicitly—it just has to be clear—especially, clear enough to be distinct from ordinary kinds of internet attack, when those are not what is intended.

So... you're recommending a polite request for possible typos to be fixed because of the confusion being caused by them?

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#106

Post by gunian »

drawkward wrote: post #81
gunian wrote: post #50

If I had around 8-12 weeks to live and have a project that is 5% complete what would the right allocation of resources be?

Allocate 0% of resources of the project, and spend your remaining time with loved ones, see some wonders, give them experiences to remember you by, make things right, etc.

what if the project is all i have? no family or friends etc

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#107

Post by satvikpendem »

niemandhier wrote: post #25

Software that is critical is not build like that. Medical device control software is not build like that, drone flight control is not build like that, power plant safety is not build like that. The problem that I noticed in the recent years is: People see the fast dev cycles for non critical software and think they can replicate it in areas where it really does not fit. I guess that’s how we ended up with Teslas self…

*built, not build, just fyi, as it is past tense not present tense.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#108

Post by rangestransform »

mrkeen wrote: post #33
niemandhier wrote: post #25

Software that is critical is not build like that. Medical device control software is not build like that, drone flight control is not build like that, power plant safety is not build like that. The problem that I noticed in the recent years is: People see the fast dev cycles for non critical software and think they can replicate it in areas where it really does not fit. I guess that’s how we ended up with Teslas self…

I always wonder where the devs come from who end up doing important work. Seniority doesn't mean anything if a dev's 20 years has been spent flinging crap over the wall and then wondering how to keep up with all the support tickets being filed. How does one get onto the "software is suppose to work" career track.

Join a robotics team in college

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#109

Post by dutchbookmaker »

knowhy wrote: post #27

> I think that the Pareto Principle is technically true in a lot of fields, but I also feel our society would be a lot better off if we didn’t know about it. I doubt that. From what I understand Vilfredo Pareto introduced it to describe the existing allocation of wealth in Italy on the brink of fascism. He claimed that the crops in his garden followed this principle. I highly doubt that that can be replicated. Ever s…

This all is the most minor aspect of Trattato di Sociologia Generale. Treatise on General Sociology, the translation is the 4 volume The Mind and Society.

The whole point is that we have these arbitrary subject divisions of knowledge for convenience. Physics, economics, biology, chemistry, etc. Then he spends 4 volumes trying to describe what he sees as the mechanics of society without worrying about these divisions of knowledge.

I have been stuck on volume 2 for years. It is brutal read.

A Pareto distribution is a type of power law distribution.

80/20 is Joseph Juran's pathetic simplification. It is something MBAs can easily remember. It is like the most minor and trivial of Pareto's thought.

The main idea of his thought is that society is largely based on types of "non-logical conduct". Pseudo-logical conduct. The best I have been able to understand it is that Pareto believed society operates on unthinking, almost quasi religious beliefs, then after the fact we invent logical and scientific sounding reasons for the action/behavior and fool ourselves into believing the action/behavior was logically arrived at from the start.

His work is trying to catalog these non-logical conducts like a butterfly collector collecting types of butterflys.

Basically, nothing much at all to do with 80/20 or fascism.

Pretty sure all the big Italian political philosophers from that time believed in the Iron Law Of Oligarchy politically. Democracy being basically a type of performance art while it doesn't matter the system, you always get oligarchy in reality.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#110

Post by drawkward »

gunian wrote: post #106
drawkward wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allocate 0% of resources of the project, and spend your remaining time with loved ones, see some wonders, give them experiences to remember you by, make things right, etc.

what if the project is all i have? no family or friends etc

Go see the world.
Post reply on HN