Analyse the following exchange and characterize the tone, rhetorical level, temperance and rationality of each talker (excerpt of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47480507 if more context is needed):

throw10920 18 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]

What does "negligence of fugality" even mean here?

There's dozens of things to optimize for in software development, with resource usage being only a few of them (as CPU, memory, and network are different targets). Who are you to decide which are the most important? And if you think that you can do a better job at picking the right trades while keeping companies in business, then you would be able to make a lot of money doing so.

But you won't. The actual reason why companies (and even personal and open-source software projects) make these "wasteful" design decisions is because normal users have clearly indicated their priorities. The majority of people would rather trade some performance for a "modern" web design, and have heavy videos rather than lightweight text to give a product overview, and want that one particular feature that adds cat ears to their profile photo and if the competition has it they'll switch.

Do I think these priorities are wrong and stupid? Absolutely. I hate bloated web pages and slow applications. But empirically, with billions of dollars of evidence, these are decisions driven by users' and customers' priorities.

Look at sites built for professionals, like Digikey and McMaster-Carr - far better designed and more performant, because they cater to customers that care about those things.

It's extremely obvious what users prioritize. And if you think that "they don't know what's best for them, but I do" - what makes you any better than a member of the economic elite or an out-of-touch PM at Microsoft?

reply

*

6 points by psychoslave 17 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]

>would be able to make a lot of money doing so.

That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense that makes obvious things look inexistent until the wall it renders invisible is hit — at high the highest speed it could reach before that.

Reality is extremely poorly summarized within the frame of a single scalar value.

>And if you think that "they don't know what's best for them, but I do" - what makes you any better than a member of the economic elite or an out-of-touch PM at Microsoft?

First of all, there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset. Also it’s not because some group don’t know what’s best for themselves that any other group will know better — whatever the label given the this other group: "I" or "too-big-to-fail Inc.".

This whole message also seem to assume some kind of full rationalization based on user priorities. But user base to a large extent takes what’s the most obviously thrown at their face. They sometime can tweak their applications if it does give some options to do so, or switch to some alternative if there are not trapped in a defacto oligopoly.

Do people want LLMs thrown at their face at every single corner of their digital interactions? Or is the the "throw it at every single surface indiscriminately and see what stick" driven by the hope that something will stick and make the capital venture lottery produce a few winner take it all?

reply


throw10920 7 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]

> That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense

No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. Every single other metric is worse. Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect methods that we have are imperfect? This is the economic corollary to that.

> Reality is extremely poorly summarized within the frame of a single scalar value.

Correct. Yet, every sane and reasonably well-educated person knows that money is the least bad single scalar value (that also happens to strongly correlate with businesses remaining solvent and individuals remaining off the streets) that can be used to measure value delivered to individuals, and that there's no alternative scalar value or combination of values that's anywhere close to as well agreed-upon as money.

Everything else in your comment is incoherent. "First of all, there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset." doesn't mean anything.

reply
8:33am

Here’s a characterization of the tone, rhetorical level, temperance, and rationality of each speaker in the exchange:

throw10920

Tone

  • Initial Post: Sarcastic, assertive, and confrontational. The tone is dismissive of opposing views, using rhetorical questions ("Who are you to decide...?") and absolute statements ("But empirically, with billions of dollars of evidence...").
  • Reply: More aggressive and condescending. The tone escalates with phrases like "No, money is the most accurate way..." and "Everything else in your comment is incoherent," which shut down dialogue rather than invite it.

Rhetorical Level

  • Initial Post: Uses logical arguments (e.g., empirical evidence, user priorities) but frames them in a way that feels like a monologue rather than a discussion. Relies on appeals to authority ("billions of dollars of evidence") and strawman arguments ("if you think that 'they don't know what's best for them, but I do'...").
  • Reply: Doubles down on absolutism ("money is the least bad single scalar value") and dismisses the opponent's argument as "incoherent" without engaging with its substance.

Temperance

  • Low. The speaker is reactive, dismissive, and unwilling to entertain alternative perspectives. The language is combative and lacks nuance or openness to dialogue.

Rationality

  • Strengths: Presents a clear, if reductionist, argument about the role of money and user priorities in driving software design. Uses empirical evidence (e.g., market success) to support claims.
  • Weaknesses: Overgeneralizes ("the majority of people would rather trade some performance...") and dismisses counterarguments without addressing their core points. The argument is rational in structure but lacks depth and flexibility.

psychoslave

Tone

  • Thoughtful, critical, and measured. The tone is analytical and invites reflection, even when challenging the opponent's views. Uses phrases like "Reality is extremely poorly summarized..." and "there no necessity to go into a you/I or them/us mindset" to encourage a broader perspective.

Rhetorical Level

  • High. The response is nuanced and avoids absolutism. It questions the framing of the original argument ("Money is a distortion and filtering lens...") and introduces philosophical and systemic critiques (e.g., the limitations of reducing value to a single scalar, the role of oligopolies in limiting user choice).
  • Uses rhetorical questions effectively ("Do people want LLMs thrown at their face at every single corner...?") to provoke thought rather than to dismiss.

Temperance

  • High. The speaker remains calm, avoids personal attacks, and engages with the opponent's arguments on their merits. The language is inclusive and open-ended, leaving room for further discussion.

Rationality

  • Strengths: Offers a systemic critique of the original argument, highlighting the limitations of market-driven priorities and the role of structural factors (e.g., oligopolies, venture capital incentives). The argument is well-reasoned and avoids oversimplification.
  • Weaknesses: Could benefit from more concrete examples or data to support claims about user behavior and market dynamics, but the lack of these does not significantly weaken the overall rationality.

Summary Table

throw10920
Sarcastic, confrontational
Logical but dismissive
Low
Rational structure, but reductionist
psychoslave
Thoughtful, measured
Nuanced, analytical
High
High, systemic and reflective

Key Takeaways

  • throw10920 presents a market-driven, empirical argument but does so in a way that shuts down dialogue and oversimplifies complex issues.
  • psychoslave offers a more reflective, systemic critique, engaging with the opponent's points while maintaining a constructive tone.

Would you like to explore how these rhetorical styles might influence the broader discussion on software design priorities?

8:33am

This is a shared conversation and may include unverified content that doesn't reflect Mistral AI's views. Login to resume chatting.