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

My Lack of Attention

champonthis.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: My Lack of Attention

#61

Post by wizofaus »

HWR_14 wrote: post #51
nonrandomstring wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." It's true that effort helps success, and working for visibility is as important as working on making something great. But sometimes life is just arbitrary. Anyone who has w…

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.

Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#62

Post by anonymouse008 »

bruce511 wrote: post #7

So here's the thing. It takes work and effort to get attention. "if you build it, they will come". Never has one cliche been so exactly wrong. Programmers, myself included, believe(d) that the code is the product. That the code will speak for itself. That being "better" (for some definition of better) is enough. If I build it, they will come. The truth though, the code is about 10% of the effort to make a successful…

Here’s the deal - if you build (great things) they will come. The problem is people aren’t building great things, period.

Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.”

If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherwise, yes, you will slog with the rest in SGA and CAC games.

scale isn’t the only way to success.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#63

Post by rsecora »

jeffreygoesto wrote: post #22
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like advertizing gospel to me. It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false. If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world. Maybe even a better one. A world where companies aren't asking "how can we fool people into buying more of what we're already making" and instead as…

Counter example: VHS

Not really, VHS was similar to Betamax. Beta has a slightly better recording format than VHS due to resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines). Both same scanline ratio.

The misconception is people confuses Betamax with Betacam, (both from Sony). Betacam was the Sony format for broadcasters, and the one with high quality (sound and picture). But bloody expensive.

Betamax lost due two to reasons. (1)tapes can only record 1 hour. Not enough for most recordings. Sony addressed the wrong market. (2) Price and retail distribution.

In other words, Betamax lost because VHS has a better market fit, and the market choose the technology that allowed to have theater movies in the video rental store.

(I was a Beta owner back in the 80s).

Re: My Lack of Attention

#64

Post by HWR_14 »

wizofaus wrote: post #61
HWR_14 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.

Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.

> "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it.

That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#65

Post by HWR_14 »

winnit wrote: post #56
HWR_14 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfair? Unjust? Not really I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.

That depends whether you consider things must either be just or unjust or whether they can simply not be just, without being an injustice.

I don't see what the distinction you're making is. It seems things are either just or unjust. That seems like standard logic.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#66

Post by watwut »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #45
watwut wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, it is not correct statement about all social animals. And second, hierarchical organization does not mean at all quality is on top.

Which social animal does not organize into a hierarchy? Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.

Lions for example - they live in aliances. Wild boars. Quite a lot of social animals live actually in families. It is hierarchy insofar adults are raising the children, but the children leave as adults and make own families. There is not much bubbling up and down.

Also, in herd animals like sheep the hierarchy consist on basically more aggressive individual eating fist and getting what they want. But, the other members dont follow them and there is no meaning of leadership. Just that, if you are stronger and beat others, you can eat first or pick place to sleep.

> Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.

They don't. In business, it can be "cheapest" or "lies the most convincingly" or "has the right connections".

Even among humans, the quality that fairy often bubbles on top is violence. You see that everywhere in the world. In Chechenia it is Kadyrov and his quality was "born to correct dad and already have proven he is ruthless when dad dies". The quality that got Adolf Hitler on top was "good speaker, able to channel fear and hate".

Those are extreme examples, but I wanted something super clear. What bubbles on top is what bubbles on top. It can occasionally be quality, but it can be host of other things too.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#67

Post by wbsun »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #62
bruce511 wrote: post #7

So here's the thing. It takes work and effort to get attention. "if you build it, they will come". Never has one cliche been so exactly wrong. Programmers, myself included, believe(d) that the code is the product. That the code will speak for itself. That being "better" (for some definition of better) is enough. If I build it, they will come. The truth though, the code is about 10% of the effort to make a successful…

Here’s the deal - if you build (great things) they will come. The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.” If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherw…

> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period.

+1000!

Praising is cheap.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#68

Post by kevinmalone »

HWR_14 wrote: post #64
wizofaus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.

> "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.

Unfair and unlucky are different concepts. Randomness could be perceived as lucky and unlucky, but that’s not what they’re saying. Randomness, if truly random, is as fair as it gets.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#69

Post by tsmigiel »

I have some skin in this game. :)

OP's app is Gloomhaven Secretary. The other app is X-Haven Assistant. I announced a similar app, Gloomhaven Full Stack, before either of those apps were started and before GH Helper was discontinued.

All of our apps can exist only because of the generosity of Gloomhaven's creator, Isaac Childres. He made all the game assets available for use in apps as long as we don't make money. And we are all building on the success of GH Helper. We are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Everything OP says about XH Assistant, I could be saying about GH Secretary. I had all the features before both of them. I have original features that they both "copy". (I did it first, but ideas are cheap, and they may have come up with it independently.) But they both look a lot nicer than mine. I feel jealousy too, but I understand why users would like the other apps more than mine.

After my initial jealousy, I was actually quite glad they existed because I could now tell users if they don't like my app, no worries try one of these others. I include links to the other apps when I post updates to my app. I often tell users about GHS along side my own app if they both address a user's issue.

To address my own jealousy, I try to feel more gratitude. I think of it as healthy competition and happy to promote competitors if they are more what the user wants. I should probably do more to acknowledge the apps that inspired me.

For now, my app still has features the others don't. I created my app to do more than GH Helper, intentionally not be a clone and experiment with ways of doing things differently from GH Helper, and to combine the functionality of 4 different apps that I was previously using. I am resolved to the fact that the other apps might eventually implement all those features, but I will continue with my app as long as I have new ideas I want to add.

Re: My Lack of Attention

#70

Post by msrenee »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #45
watwut wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, it is not correct statement about all social animals. And second, hierarchical organization does not mean at all quality is on top.

Which social animal does not organize into a hierarchy? Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.

If you've ever watched a herd of horses, you'd know that's not true. Dominance bubbles to the top. Pushiness bubbles to the top. If the animal is also a decent leader, then great. A lot of the time it's insecure and too busy trying to maintain its position and the rest of the herd ends up harried and banged up.

Seen it in dogs too, seen it a million times in people. Those are more artificial situations though.

Post reply on HN