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

Of course we learned this all before a century ago, it's why we have things like the FDA in the first place. But this new generation of techno-libertarians and DOGE folks who grew up in a "move fast and break things" era, who grew up in the cleanest and safest times the world has ever seen, have no understanding or care of the dangers here and are willing to throw it all away because of imagined inefficiencies. Regulations are written in blood, and those that remove them will have new blood on their hands.

We have that already. It's called part-time jobs. Usually they don't pay as much as full-time jobs, provide no health insurance or other benefits, etc.

In actuality, everyone is doing the same thing and their decisions are already made for them. Companies don't just act evil because they are evil. They act evil because all they can ever be is evil. If they don't, then they lose. So what's left?

Facebook becoming an ad-ridden disaster was, in a way, predestined. Unavoidable.

The actual realization is that most people simple rather work 40h a week (or more) and spend their money on whatever they want to spend their money on.

Specially many of us here, can do so easily. I personally work 80% and could reduce it further if my goal was maximum leisure.

By far the biggest reason it doesn't feel that way, is that housing polices in most of the Western world have been utterly and completely braindead. That and the ever increasing cost of health care as people get ever older and older.

The key point to understand is the only effort that matters is that which makes the sale. Business is a series of transactions, and each individual transaction is binary: it either happens or it doesn't. Sometimes, you can make the sale by having a product which is so much better than alternatives that it's a complete no-brainer to use it, and then makes people so excited that they tell all their friends. Sometimes you make the sale by reaching out seven times to a prospect that's initially cold but warms up in the face of your persistence. Sometimes, you make the sale by associating your product with other experiences that your customers want to have, like showing a pretty woman drinking your beer on a beach. Sometimes, you make the sale by offering your product 80% off to people who will switch from competitors and then jacking up the price once they've become dependent on it.

You should know which category your product fits into, and how and why customers will buy it, because that's the only way you can make smart decisions about how to allocate your resources. Investing in engineering quality is pointless if there is no headroom to deliver experiences that will make a customer say "Wow, I need to have that." But if you are sitting on one of those gold mines, capitalizing on it effectively is orders of magnitude more efficient than trying to market a product that doesn't really work.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU

We're still trying to figure out the marketing. I'm convinced the high failure rate of restaurants is due largely to founders who know how to make good food and think their culinary skills plus word-of-mouth will get them sales.

Famously Toyota beat many companies that were basing their strategy on marketing rather than quality.

They were able to use quality as part of their marketing.

My father in law worked in a car showroom and talks about when they first installed carpet there.

No one did that previously. The subtle point to customers being that Toyotas didn’t leak oil.

And its also a cherry picked example. There are so many counter-examples, how Sun out-competed HP, IBM, Appollo and DEC. Or how AMD in the last 10 years out-competed Intel, sure its all marketing. I could go on with 100s of examples just in computer history.

Marketing is clearly an important aspect in business, nobody denies that. But there are many other things that are important as well. You can have the best marketing in the world, if you fuck up your production and your supply chain, your company is toast. You can have the best marketing in the world, if your product sucks, people will reject it (see the Blackbarry Strom as an nice example). You can have the best marketing in the world, if your finance people fuck up, the company might go to shit anyway.

Anybody that reaches for simple explanations like 'marketing always wins' is just talking nonsense.

    case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
    inline def onlyJoes(p: Person) = p.name == "Joe"

    // run a SQL query
    run( query[Person].filter(p => onlyJoes(p)) )
    
    // Use the same function with a Scala list
    val people: List[Person] = ...
    val joes = people.filter(p => onlyJoes(p))

    // Or, after defining some typeclasses/extension methods
    val joesFromDb = query[Person].onlyJoes.run
    val joesFromList = people.onlyJoes

[0] https://github.com/zio/zio-protoquill?tab=readme-ov-file#sha...

[1] https://github.com/zio

[2] https://github.com/zio/zio-http

    var set = new HashSet<Employee>();

    @JdbcRepository(dialect = ANSI) interface EmployeeQueries : CrudRepository<Employee, String> {
        fun findByCountryAndGender(country: String, gender: String): List<Employee>
    }

    val femaleUSEmployees = employees.findByCountryAndGender("US", "Female")

Other functional languages, too, but Clojure. You get exactly this, minus all the <'s =>'s ;'s and other irregularities, and minus all the verbosity...

I couldn't find anything specific when searching.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

The Market for Lemons idea seems like it has merit in general but is too strong and too binary to apply broadly, that’s where I was headed with the suggestion for another name. It’s not that people want low quality. Nobody actually wants defective products. People are just price sensitive, and often don’t know what high quality is or how to find it (or how to price it), so obviously market forces will find a balance somewhere. And that balance is extremely likely to be lower on the quality scale than what people who care about high quality prefer. This is why I think you’re right about the software market tolerating low quality; it’s because market forces push everything toward low quality.

First, honest impression: At least on my phone (Android/Chromium) the typography and style of the website don't quite match that "high quality & expensive ingredients" vibe the parfums are supposed to convey. The banners (3 at once on the very first screen, one of them animated!), italic text, varying font sizes, and janky video header would be rather off-putting to me. Maybe it's also because I'm not a huge fan of flat designs, partially because I find they make it difficult to visually distinguish important and less important information, but also because I find them a bit… unrefined and inelegant. And, again, this is on mobile, so maybe on desktop it comes across differently.

Disclaimer: I'm not a designer (so please don't listen only to me and take everything with a grain of salt) but I did work as a frontend engineer for a luxury retailer for some time.

Some customers WANT to pay a premium just so they know they’re getting the best product.

this website looks like a scam website redirecter the one where you have to click on 49 ads and wait for 3 days before you get to your link the video playing immediately makes me think that's a Google ad unrelated to what the website is about the different font styles reminds me of the middle school HTML projects we had to do with each line in a different size and font face to prove that we know how to use <font face> and <font size>. All its missing is a jokerman font

From the site there's a huge assumption that potential customers are aware of what extrait de parfum is vs eau de parfum (or even eau de toilette!).

Might be worth a call out that these fragrances are in fact a standard above the norm.

"The highest quality fragrance money can buy" kind of thing.

Has she tried raising prices? To signal that her product is highly quality and thus more expensive than her competition?

The issue is that you have to be able to distinguish a good mechanic from a bad mechanic cuz they all get to charge a lot because of the shortage. Same thing for plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc etc etc

But I understand your point.

I assume all software is shit in some fashion because every single software license includes a clause that has "no fitness for any particular purpose" clause. Meaning, if your word processor doesn't process words, you can't sue them.

When we get consumer protection laws that require that software does what is says on the tin quality will start mattering.

    > feedback from customers about skyscrapers in New York being on fire

If it was just because it was cheap, we'd also see similar fraud from Mexican or Vietnamese sellers, but I don't really see that.

Their software quality itself is about average for the tech industry. It's not bad, but not amazing either. It's sufficient for the task and better than their primary competitor (Windows). But, their UI quality is much higher, and that's what people can check quickly with their own eyes and fingers in a shop.

Apple's aesthetic is more important than the quality (which has been deteriorating lately)

All of those were marketed as just-barely-affordable consumer luxury goods. The physical design and the marketing were more important than the specs.

I simply don't understand how people can live in the real world, look around themselves and claim quality is getting worse. This is simply not the case for 99% of product I have consumed over my few decades of being an adult.

A typical day. I get up, mattress I have now is better. I brush my teeth with a powerful electric toothbrush that is much superior then the once a decade ago. I use a amazing induction stove that is far better then what I had a decade ago. I ride a beautiful electric bus to the train station. From there I take modern fast train to work, much better and faster then 10-20 years ago. I set on my desk that goes up and down, has a insanely large beautiful monitor on it, incredible. I turn on my laptop that 100x more powerful then my first one. I start a IDE that is much better then what I had when I started. I use a programming language better then the one I used when I started, and I have a much larger library ecosystem. I spin up VM and containers, both locally and if I need in a waste internet cloud. I go for launch, I have like 20 options, food from one end of the globe to the the other, much better then I had 20 years ago.

I could go on about almost every single product I tough on typical day. The only thing that is actually not much better are things like backed goods, and mostly because they were already amazing. At most its now faster to buy them and I can buy them at more places.

I really don't why so many people inhere are crying about how everything is getting worse all the time.

They have constant, frequent, hardware design issues that they just don't even acknowledge and somehow people still treat their hardware as "high quality"

They once shipped a phone that lost signal if you held it with your hand. Their solution, after insisting that people hold their phone differently, was cheap plastic cases.

They shipped a new keyboard that would fail after singular grains of dust got into it, in order to save a millimeter of thickness on a product that was already quite thin. In order to repair or replace the keyboard, you have to replace half of the whole machine, for half the price of a brand new laptop.

Apple does not spend real effort on hardware quality.

I would argue this is a bad example - most luxury cars aren't really meaningfully "better", they just have status symbol value. A mid range Honda civic or Toyota corolla is not "worse" than a Mercedes for most objective measurements.

To borrow your example, it's as if Mercedes started giving every 4th customer a Lada instead (after the papers are signed). The expensive Mercedes market would quickly no longer meet the luxury demand of wealthy buyers and collapse. Not the least because Mercedes would start showing super-normal profits, and all other luxury brands would get in on the same business model. It's a race to the bottom. When one seller decreases the quality, so must others. Otherwise, they'll soon be bought out, and that's the best-case scenario compared to being outcompeted.

There is some evidence that the expensive software market has collapsed. In the 00s and 90s, we used to have expensive and cheap video games, expensive and cheap video editing software, and expensive and cheap office suites. Now, we have homogeneous software in every niche — similar features and similar (relatively cheap) prices. AAA game companies attempting to raise their prices back to 90s levels (which would make a AAA game $170+ in today's money) simply cannot operate in the expensive software market. First, there was consumer distrust due to broken software, then there were no more consumers in that expensive-end market segment.

Hardware you mention (iPhones, Androids, Macs, PCs) still have superior and inferior hardware options. Both ends of the market exist. The same applies to most consumer goods - groceries, clothes, shoes, jewelry, cars, fuel, etc. However, for software, the top end of the market is now non-existent. It's gone the way of expensive secondary market (resale) cars, thanks to how those with hidden defects undercut their price and destroyed consumer trust.

But that shifted later, with Milton Friedman, who pushed the idea of shareholder capitalism in the 70s. Where companies switched to thinking the only goal is to maximize shareholder value.

In his theory, government would provide regulation and policies to address stakeholder's needs, and companies therefore needed focus on shareholders.

In practice, lobbying, propaganda and corruption made it so governments dropped the ball and also sided to maximize shareholder value, along with companies.

Meta and Alphabet had zero cost products (to consumers) that they leveraged to become near monopolies.

Aren’t all the AI companies believed to be providing their products below cost for now to grab market share?

Disagree, the main reason so many apps are using "slow" languages/frameworks is precisely that it allows them to develop way more features way quicker than more efficient and harder languages/frameworks.

I never said performance wasn't an important quality metric, just that it's not the only quality metric. If a slow program has the features I need and a fast program doesn't, the slow program is going to be "higher quality" in my mind.

> How fast you can compile, start and execute some particular code matters. The experience of using a program that performs well if you use it daily matters.

Like any other feature, whether or not performance is important depends on the user and context. Chrome being faster than IE8 at general browsing (rendering pages, opening tabs) was very noticeable. uv/ruff being faster than pip/poetry is important because of how the tools integrate into performance-sensitive development workflows. Does Slack taking 5-10 seconds to load on startup matter? -- to me not really, because I have it come up on boot and forget about it until my next system update forced reboot. Do I use LibreOffice or Word and Excel, even though LibreOffice is faster? -- I use Word/Excel because I've run into annoying compatibility issues enough times with LO to not bother. LibreOffice could reduce their startup and file load times to 10 picoseconds and I would still use MS Office, because I just want my damn documents to keep the same formatting my colleagues using MS Office set on their Windows computers.

Now of course I would love the best of all worlds; programs to be fast and have all the functionality I want! In reality, though, companies can't afford to build every feature, performance included, and need to pick and choose what's important.

That an alternate tool might perform better is compatible with the claim that performance alone is never the only difference between software.

Podman might be faster than Docker, but since it's a different tool, migrating to it would involve figuring out any number of breakage in my toolchain that doesn't feel worth it to me since performance isn't the only thing that matters.

Another example is that I use oh-my-zsh which is adds weirdly long startup time to a shell session, but it lets me use plugins that add things like git status and kubectl context to my prompt instead of fiddling with that myself.

The AI can use tools to extract various key metrics from the product that is analysed. Even if we limit such metrics down to those that can be verified in various "dumb" ways we should be able to verify products much further than today.

On the website front - Facebook, twitter, Airbnb, Reddit, most news sites, all take 10+ seconds to load or be functional, and their core functionality has regressed significantly in the last decade. I’m not talking about features that I prefer, but as an example if you load two links in Reddit in two different tabs my experience has been that it’s 50/50 if they’ll actually both load or if one gets stuck either way skeletons.

The "instant" today is really laggy compared to what we had. Opening Slack takes 5s on a flagship phone and opening a channel which I just had open and should be fully cached takes another 2s. When you type in JIRA the text entry lags and all the text on the page blinks just a tiny bit (full redraw). When pages load on non-flagship phones (i.e. most of the world), they lag a lot, which I can see on monitoring dashboards.

Somehow the Xcode team managed to make startup and some features in newer Xcode versions slower than older Xcode versions running on old Intel Macs.

E.g. the ARM Macs are a perfect illustration that software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.

After a very short 'free lunch' right after the Intel => ARM transition we're now back to the same old software performance regression spiral (e.g. new software will only be optimized until it feels 'fast enough', and that 'fast enough' duration is the same no matter how fast the hardware is).

Another excellent example is the recent release of the Oblivion Remaster on Steam (which uses the brand new UE5 engine):

On my somewhat medium-level PC I have to reduce the graphics quality in the Oblivion Remaster so much that the result looks worse than 14-year old Skyrim (especially outdoor environments), and that doesn't even result in a stable 60Hz frame rate, while Skyrim runs at a rock-solid 60Hz and looks objectively better in the outdoors.

E.g. even though the old Skyrim engine isn't by far as technologically advanced as UE5 and had plenty of performance issues at launch on a ca. 2010 PC, the Oblivion Remaster (which uses a "state of the art" engine) looks and performs worse than its own 14 years old predecessor.

I'm sure the UE5-based Oblivion remaster can be properly optimized to beat Skyrim both in looks and performance, but apparently nobody cared about that during development.

If you haven't compared high and low latency directly next to each other then there are good odds that you don't know what it looks like. There was a twitter video from awhile ago that did a good job showing it off that's one of the replies to the OP. It's here: https://x.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960

Sorry if I'm too presumptuous, however; you might be completely correct and instant is instant in your case.

Life on an entry or even mid level windows laptop is a very different world.

However, you also need to consider 2 additional factors. Macbooks and iPhones, even 4 year old ones, have usually been at the upper end of the scale for processing power. (When compared to the general mass-market of private end-consumer devices)

Try doing the same on a 4 year old 400 Euro laptop and it might look a bit different. Also consider your connection speed and latency. I usually have no loading issue either. But I have a 1G fiber connection. My parents don't.

On the extreme, my retired parents don't feel the difference between 5s or 1s when loading a window or clicking somewhere. I offered a switch to a new laptop, cloning their data, and they didn't give a damn and just opened the laptop the closest to them.

Most people aren't that desensitized, but for some a 600ms delay is instantaneous when for other it's 500ms too slow.

This is absolutely remarkable inefficiency considering the application's core functionality (media players) was perfected a quarter century ago.

You say snappy, but what is snappy? I right now have a toy project in progress in zig that uses users perception as a core concept.

Rarely one can react to 10ms jank. But when you get to bare metal development 10ms becomes 10 million of reasonably high level instructions that can be done. Now go to website, click. If you can sense a delay from JS this means that jank is approximately 100ms; does clicking that button, really should be 100 million instructions?

When you look close enough you will find that not only it’s 100 million instructions but your operating system along with processor made tens of thousands of tricks in the background to minimize the jank and yet you still can sense it.

Today even writing in non optimized, unpopular languages like Prolog is viable because hardware is mindblowing fast, and yet some things are slow, because we utilize that speed to decrease development costs.

How long did it take the last time you had to use an HDD rather than SSD for your primary drive?

How long did it take the first time you got to use an SSD?

How long does it take today?

Did literally anything other than the drive technology ever make a significant difference in that, in the last 40 years?

> Almost everything loads instantly on my 2021 MacBook

Instantly? Your applications don't have splash screens? I think you've probably just gotten used to however long it does take.

> 5 year old mobile CPUs load modern SPA web apps with no problems.

"An iPhone 11, which has 4GB of RAM (32x what the first-gen model had), can run the operating system and display a current-day webpage that does a few useful things with JavaScript".

This should sound like clearing a very low bar, but it doesn't seem to.