Bad at the game, bad at engineering, but good at marketing.
There's a lesson in here.
Similar to how most of the software that runs the internet is poorly written and has bad fundamentals.
There's a lesson in here.
Similar to how most of the software that runs the internet is poorly written and has bad fundamentals.
"#20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately."
I don't know much about all of this but it seems to me that owning chess.com is 99% of their success if it's not great at the game or great at the engineering aspect.
Pure anecdata, but I only know one person irl who prefers chess.com, and I never managed to get a straight answer from him as to why, other than "i just play there and like it more, maybe i will check out Lichess at some point, idk."
On Lichess the puzzles are less well organized and explained, the Lessons interface is arcane and much less polished in terms of content overall though there are gems if you hunt and eventually figure out the UI, and online play is likewise has a lot of small things all over that make a big difference.
Besides that I tend to use, and pay for, chess.com more for their other features than for anything directly UI related. Their puzzles are better. I think their post game analysis is nicer to use, the way they do analysis in general is easier to use than lichess I think. They also have a lot of learning material.
As far as playing games go, I have friends who use both and therefor I play on both. It's about the same as far as I'm concerned.
Microsoft Teams? Good lesson to startups and companies in general.
Or is that the same thing here?
For the uninitiated, the idea is that a product needs good engineering + good marketing to be successful. Products with only one of them will fail. The idea of Berkson’s fallacy is that even though it seems that good marketing is negatively correlated with engineering (and vice-versa) it’s actually because the baseline level of engineering and marketing is low, and products which happen to excel in one don’t need to excel in the other.
> 20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.
Maybe now we can get rid of Byzantine tech interview processes and instead just focus on hiring people that are capable of hacking things together.
Based on my daily frustrations with basically every piece of software, that already appears to be the status quo.
That’s the kind of elitist thinking that leads to Byzantine tech interviews and poor collaboration.
Edit: remove the dig at management which is too easy a scapegoat to explain all ills
"Hacked together" is the software equivalent of fixing things with duct tape. It sounds cool and fun, and is fun to do for your own playthings, but it is a terrible mentality for developing solid projects.