First 20% of effort will finish 80% of the work. Second 20% effort will finish 16% of the 20% left.Totally 96% will be finished.
Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
21–30 of 127 posts
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#22I feel like every concept can be taken too far or is expected to perfectly encapsulate every situation. The few principles I live by are vague to avoid that predicament- 1. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good 2. Under promise, over deliver 3. Graveyards are full of indispensable men 1 took me a long time to really learn 2 In my case, where I've sucked at estimations, it's really not over deliver, but deliv…
That quote is Georges Clemenceau, not Charles De Gaulle. He was a French politician, but long before De Gaulle.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#23In terms of economics and utility, the last 80% of effort produces 20% of the result. But the last 80% give us something much more that isn’t quantified: The feeling of having completed something of value, and having done it properly, carries an inherent value that surpasses the last 20% output. It is unquantifiable and priceless. This is when work or products become timeless and truly valuable. Not to mention that f…
Exactly, the extra effort to complete it is worth it, but it is costly. I think this can be explored in a positive way by selling incomplete things cheaper to the end user while using this money to sustain the development of the last 20%. I think Minecraft is a well known example of applying this model that was fair for both the developers and end users.
Minecraft has been rebuilt multiple times (Java, PS3, Bedrock) and is still not done.
I have not seen the code bases from the inside but I would be very surprised if not a lot of it has been touched in recent years.
I firmly believe any sense of accomplishment comes from what you give players, not how ”complete” your implementation is.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#24While 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…
I think it’s also worth mentioning that the author fundamentally misunderstands a MVP. A vertical slice video game presentation _is_ a kind of MVP, and there are tons of anecdotes e.g. from the E3 that tell us just how minimal these can be. MVPs take different shapes and forms, a polished but limited video game level is no different than a polished landing page with functionality limited to e.g. sign up.
To deliver a vertical slice you also create hacks left and right and they quite often then later stand in the way of actually delivering a proper product. I remember the blog post by Ron Gilbert where he presented Da Vinci's Vertical Slice [1] and it still sits with me as one of the best way to present the issues.
A vertical slice is not an MVP because people would never consider it minimally viable. It's a tiny product but it's completely polished and it's for a consumer of one: the publisher.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#25Software 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 driving.
I am a bit worried that ai seems to be build like that, using development cycles fit for a convenience appliance for what could be used as a weapon.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that the author fundamentally misunderstands a MVP. A vertical slice video game presentation _is_ a kind of MVP, and there are tons of anecdotes e.g. from the E3 that tell us just how minimal these can be. MVPs take different shapes and forms, a polished but limited video game level is no different than a polished landing page with functionality limited to e.g. sign up.
To deliver a vertical slice you also create hacks left and right and they quite often then later stand in the way of actually delivering a proper product. I remember the blog post by Ron Gilbert where he presented Da Vinci's Vertical Slice [1] and it still sits with me as one of the best way to present the issues. A vertical slice is not an MVP because people would never consider it minimally viable. It's a tiny prod…
The complete polish is the author's very point, alongside the fact that most software products never get that complete polish.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#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 since people refer to the Pareto principle when they observe a 80/20 distribution. Like it is some kind of natural law. But it is not. At least I have yet to see a scientific explanation why a 80/20 distribution would have any kind of special meaning. Just because some distributions are 80/20 doesn't mean there is anything special about it, a lot of distributions are not 80/20.
So I think society would be better off if people would stop acting like it is a natural law and there is nothing to change about it.
Paereto distribution is dangerous since it is applied to justify hierarchies in society. And it is just not a good justification.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#28While 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.
Well, yes in some cases. In lots of others it's just another implementation of existing software. Oh, you're building another food delivery app, because the current one is missing feature xxx?
This doesn't make them bad, the world is full of different contexts, and providing a solution tailored to a specific context is valuable.
But most startups are not "novel". Even in a novel space (like self driving cars) there are a bunch of companies in that space (basically competing for VC money. )
I'm very much in the MVP camp - if anything I'm more extreme- I'm in the "show me a market and how to reach them before coding anything" camp.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares. The meaning is apparent and the structure is coherent. A well written comment, so these things seem too minor to call out IMO. What's more, these days if you include some strategic typos, you help convince me that you're not a lazy slop-poster, or an outright bot.
[flagged]
Don't post ChatGPT output in HN comments.