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

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#41

Post by cjblomqvist »

bruce511 wrote: post #28
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. 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 valua…

There are other parts than the product that can the innovation for a startup. Very few things are novel product wise when they hit it big. Innovation can be bringing existing business model to a new market for example. Then you should most likely 80/20 that new thing.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#42

Post by openrisk »

Good post even if only for making the term "vertical slice" more broadly known.

Clearly the applicability of this alternative in other domains might not be as direct as in gaming software but its an interesting way to think about how to structure deliverables on the way to the "1.0" release.

In other words thinking of horizontal and vertical slice chunks of work, where horizontal means perfecting one functionality that applies across all product components (may not be visible to end-user), while vertical is perfecting all functionalities of one component that is visible to the end user.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#43

Post by globular-toast »

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…

> 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 to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved.

I feel like it's completely the opposite. A new game doesn't need to "replace" old games. People have played those games. It only needs to be new and good enough to get people's attention.

But tools usually are replacing something existing. Tech that actually creates new possibilities is few and far between. The internet is one example of that. Can you think of another? I think most new tech is aiming to replace older tech that is currently used for those problems.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#44

Post by awesome_dude »

dang wrote: post #35
awesome_dude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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?

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#45

Post by awesome_dude »

isoprophlex wrote: post #17
awesome_dude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

ChatGPT can you write me a response that includes enough typos to look human, but not enough that I look like a prince from Nigeria tracking down relatives to give them money?

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#46

Post by awesome_dude »

blululu wrote: post #32
awesome_dude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Fair point. I could have and should have done better. Sadly the edit window has passed otherwise I would clean up the original. In a sense, this more or less represents the core purpose of an MVP in action. The author might take the same lesson and revisit this essay in light of the feedback here (or just abandon it as a misstep that is not worth the effort to refine). I was sincere in saying that I appreciate the ef…

Thanks, I didn't mean it as a dig, I just wanted to be sure that what I was guessing was being said was what you actually meant.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#47

Post by wickedsight »

About Pareto applied to AI, I find this interesting:

> Even people who advocate for these technologies rarely assert that the results are useable as-is, especially in a world where people are accustomed to a much higher, human-level quality. At best they are useful as a starting point for a human to then finish the image, or the cover letter...

I think this might be a bit of a thought trap. Because the people working on and advocating for these technologies are definitely in the top 20% of intelligence/capabilities/whatever you want to call it. For that 20%, the (arguably achieved) 80% might not be good enough. But there are a lot of people who are already vastly outperformed by many of the currently available AI tools in many tasks.

There are many people who are just awful at writing and can already benefit greatly from these tools, for example to write readable cover letters. Or for explaining things in basic language, something I often use it for when trying to understand complicated texts from another field.

The other side of Pareto is that perfect is the enemy of good. Sometimes 80% adds so much value for the majority, that the other 20% isn't necessary to label something good enough. The article contains an image of a Cyber Truck, which is fitting, but I truly loved my early Model 3 which was arguably also only 80% done.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#49

Post by MisterKent »

lsy wrote: post #31

There’s a conflation going on here. Pareto can be good engineering—a product that solves 80% of use cases at 20% of the cost is a great efficiency: tax prep software for simple tax returns only; a minimalist photo sharing site with few social features; a phone with a great UI and no user-installable apps. This gets conflated with products that are 80% reliable across all their tasks (LLMs, brittle software). That mak…

That's not pareto. That's just finding a niche of people who would prefer more focused products.

Tax prep software for simple returns only is an entire product. Adding support for the other 20% would lose your initial base's interest.

Tax software that aims to solve all problems whose MVP is it handles 80% of people's tax returns is the pareto the author is talking about. But the real complexity is the other 20%.

Pareto as a minimalism process for focused product development is not engineering (good or bad).

Forgetting pareto and believing (or lying) that you are truly 80% of the way there is a big problem in engineering and funding. The author is correct in that.

Post reply on HN