Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | JohnBooty's commentslogin

    If you want a PC and your favorite brand 
    is missing something that a competitor has, 
    it's easy to switch
Yeah. Although, there's no "logical" reason for their for their psychedelically large laptop lineup with 50-100 base models. It's purely psychology I guess.

Like Dell Vostro, their "small business" line. Versus Latitude, their "business" line. What on earth is uniquely needed by a "small business" versus a... regular business? Why not introduce a third "large business" line? Maybe a "sole proprietor" line too?

It can only be explained as a psychology play. The dizzying array of options is designed to, I suppose, make you feel like Dell surely has the exact right laptop for you, even if that is bullshit.

It doesn't entirely make sense to me from a psyche standpoint either -- I have no idea why purchasers would possibly feel anything other than anxiety and analysis paralysis. But whatever!


> Like Dell Vostro, their "small business" line. Versus Latitude, their "business" line. What on earth is uniquely needed by a "small business" versus a... regular business? Why not introduce a third "large business" line? Maybe a "sole proprietor" line too?

My vague recollection is that Latitude were nice business laptops; coming with all the enterprise goodies, replaceable parts, service manual, next-day onsite support available and also the enterprise usual costs, lack of sexy displays, and slow model turnover.

Vostro was a lot closer to the Inspirons (sold for personal use); I think just badge engineering a couple selected Inspirons to have a bit longer of a product cycle and better parts availability.

Re: analysis paralysis, that's a real issue. I try to find some feature that really narrows the field and then it becomes easier to decide. If I required a wired ethernet port, memory slot(s), and a specific cpu family, it narrows the field a lot; then I can figure out from what's left. For laptops, off-lease entrerprise refurbs are pretty price competitive with new models targetted for personal use; then it's really a matter of what's available, and how they differ ... and then looking at the units with specific damage/defects to see if the compensating price drop makes sense; personally, I'd take several dead pixels for $100 off, cause I don't do pixel peeping work anyway.


It's the old General Motors product philosophy of "A Car for Every Purse and Purpose". That market segmentation and badge engineering approach worked great for decades and allowed them to earn huge profits. But eventually customers figured out that there was no actual difference between a Buick versus a Pontiac, and more focused competitors ate their lunch.

Many moons ago, we used to buy Dell Dimension desktops at work. They were fine. They were very quiet, robustly-built, and were expandable to fit individual users' requirements as things changed. They were usually easy to work on when that was necessary.

Dell also had the Precision line, which was very posh. These cost a lot more.

The Vostro line eventually showed up. They were noisier, and lighter/flimsier, less-expandable, and harder to work on. But they did cost less to buy.

---

I would never buy a Vostro computer for myself. I think that buying cheapness as a primary feature is dumb. Given a choice between good/better/best, I tend to pick "better." I like being able to get what I think is a better design, even though it generally costs somewhat more. I don't want the cheapest car tires, the cheapest hand tools, or the cheapest PC.

But the company chose to operate as cheap-at-every-expense. The Vostro line was a perfect fit for their buying proclivities, so that's what they started buying. (I didn't like that, but those decisions were above of my paygrade.)

---

Was Dell wrong for offering several different classes of computer back then?

Are they wrong for doing so today?

Why? Why not?

(Remember: In the insatiable quest for the bottom dollar, the company kept buying Dell computers. We could have began giving those dollars to one of their competitors instead, but we did not do so. This suggests that the model is not bullshit at all: After all, they are in the business of selling computers, and we kept buying them.)


I agree with the agency aspect.

But... as team size grows, LLMs can be more valuable in other ways. Larger teams typically have larger codebases to comprehend, more users, more bug reports to triage, etc. It's SO much easier to get up to speed on a big existing codebase now.


Truthfully (IIRC) the book is more about "Influencing People" than "Making Friends." But, it's about doing it in a genuine way.

I think it's puzzling that so many people here attach such a negative connotation to "influencing." I mean, my partner made me really hungry tonight when they cooked dinner and it smelled great. It influenced me. MLK influenced people. Etc. etc.


"Influence" is a perfectly neutral term.

Martin Luther King Jr. influenced people. Gandhi influenced people. Mozart influenced people. Your favorite teacher influenced you.


I think it has taken a rather negative connotation with the development of psychology, marketing and "influencers" which are usually people that try to influence you to buy into something.

One of the main points of human existence is to influence people....in a good way.

Yeah. It's only wrong if there's deception involved, or a failure to care about the needs of the other.

Like other skills it can absolutely be cultivated.

Even if one doesn't "naturally" care about others, it's also true that even from a totally selfish perspective it still kind of pays dividends to be a good person, be concerned with the welfare of the people around you, and build interpersonal connections.

There's limits to that, for sure. There are a number of biological bases for empathy. And being biological, it stands to reason that different people will have different capacities. But, it also certainly feels like a skill.

Here's another angle. A lot of people, perhaps maybe a lot of engineer types, struggle with empathy because the needs and wants of others just feel like a confusing sea of infinite possibilities. But here's a trick. At any given moment, any given human being is probably just trying to fill one of the needs on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.


Don't be silly.

Influencing somebody is only wrong if you fail to care about their needs in a reciprocal way... the line you quoted specifically addresses that.


No, The Prince is very literal.

Inspiration for the red pill (which represents choosing knowledge, however ugly, over pleasant ignorance) would be more like... the apple in the Garden of Eden. Or the Allegory of the Cave maybe. Or Alice in Wonderland (which Morpheus directly mentions in the Matrix)

Redpillers latched onto that red pill imagery because they view themselves as, you know, having the best grasp on reality. Unlike the poor ignorant masses. Or so they believe.

"Redpilled" views do have some things in common with Realpolitik, and The Prince, in the sense that they're kind of nakedly amoral and rather ugly.


I think the red pill is a direct reference to the matrix. Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they cant stop talking about.

For sure, the red pill is a direct reference to the Matrix. I think previous poster was asking if the Matrix took that idea from somewhere.

    Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and 
    gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they 
    cant stop talking about.
Yeah. I think the connection they see is that the reality Neo chose to confront (a humankind enslaved by machines) was unpleasant, and the redpill gang knows their version of reality is very ugly as well.

    I got it in my head that it's a sort of red 
    pilled book that teaches you how to manipulate 
    people. 
You're not totally wrong. It's been ages since I read it, but there are parts that feel a little transactional but also many that don't, and it never advocates dishonesty or exploitative behavior or anything like that.

(I also view the ability to influence people as independent from morality. It's like learning MMA or hacking or something. They're not inherently "good" or "bad" skills - your morality determines how you'll use them)

Ultimately I think it's great and I recommend it. It's certainly cheap enough! I'm sure there are a zillion copies on eBay for like two bucks.


Either decision is kind of rough, artistically.

Ditching existing canon often kind of sucks for all the reasons you said.

On the other hand, when you have reams and reams and reams of existing canon you kind of write yourself into a corner. Imagine writing a new Batman story and needing to cross-check it against all existing Batman material ever written to make sure you haven't contradicted anything. If every Batman story ever written was canon I'm sure we'd have every second of his life accounted for already! So at some point I think you just have to throw some of it overboard...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: