Coding without a laptop: Two weeks with AR glasses and Linux on Android

Could you please provide enough detail here in your example, that we can discuss and quantify what that value is, so we can compare it with the cost of running the store?

Let's say we have an "all the XR glasses" store that lets visitors try on different XR glasses and see what fits, and the visitors then later buy them from Amazon because the glasses are cheaper there.

p.s.: on multiple posts, you've taken non-personal comments extremely personally (e.g. stuff like 'how dare you say something I already know [because I am smart], thus assuming I don't know it and am dumb'), and attacking others as well, almost as if the topic is you, and not your comment. Just to head that off at the pass: I'm interested in discussing what you said, not in discussing myself or you. You're a smart person. Let's focus on substance.

  >>>>>> Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers.

If you wish for a thorough analysis then my answer is "This is Hacker News". Such an expectation is excessive and out of scope of the platform.

I am happy to have my statements rebutted and critiqued but not by accusation of failing to account for widely understood and basic conditions. If you believe I am improperly evaluating the costs of these, then that is another matter and I am happy to have those discussions. Even if these are the conjecture of two rational and reasonably informed people without direct and detailed analysis. If you wish to seek out research and do detailed analysis I not only will not stop you, I'd encourage you. This would be a great way to counter my comment and have a high likelihood of changing my belief/understanding of the environment.

  > p.s.: on multiple posts,

Frankly, because not operating under this belief generates fighting, degrades conversations, and derails conversations. As others might more succinctly say "this isn't Reddit." I am only trying to be explicit in stating why such retorts are low quality.

It appears that frequently people do not realize the assumptions that their responses makes.

  > I already know [because I am smart]

The push-back is not "because I am smart" but rather "because I am not incredibly ignorant."

I do not want to conflate the two. They are significantly different. The reason "I already know" is conditioned on my intelligence being above that of a child. This is what generates the insult and the more aggressive follow-up after they doubled down. It is not conditioned on being above average, nor being in the "smart" category.

Let's look at the original response

  >>>>> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist

Mind you, my original comment also demonstrates awareness that these physical stores have operational costs. My critique makes no sense otherwise, as there would be no reason to even close these stores if they were free to operate. So this contributes to the reason danparsonson's response is inappropriate and insulting. It is in bad faith (the faith being I'm not malicious nor unreasonable).

I think you should also look back to how I responded much differently to 20after4. I did equally push back at their first point which is equally egregious. But I move on and engage with the rest. Their comment has additional substance and isn't entirely contingent upon excessive naivety, whereas that is all there is to danparsonson's (their third line completely ignores my entire thesis of physical locations providing value other than direct sales and is itself making the same error I am criticizing: hyper-fixation on measuring operational value through direct sales). So they get different responses.

  > Let's focus on substance.

If that were so, you would not have had multiple people ask you for clarification or specifics.

> Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers

Thanks, I think what you are missing is that it appears, based on the evidence, that the "more business value" examples you cite are often not enough to keep stores open, hence all the store closings.

This was obvious to multiple people, so the assumption on the part of multiple people was that you had some theory or model or analysis or evidence to add which would say otherwise. It appears that is not the case. Indeed, you were given the opportunity to demonstrate by example, but did not take it.

p.s.: In seeking a better conversation, I've omitted the part of your response dealing with you or me as a primary topic.

  > If that were so, you would not have had multiple people ask you for clarification or specifics.

  >  examples you cite are often not enough to keep stores open, hence all the store closings.

  > This was obvious to multiple people,

Responding this way also is inappropriate to my comment too. My comment would lead to the claim that stores closed because they failed to adapt to a changing environment. This would consequentially lead to exactly identical settings.

If you want evidence for why you might want to believe this, look at Sears. A store that famously had a mail based catalogue. Their failure to adapt to internet markets is widely discussed as from a hindsight perspective it seems crazy that they didn't dominate. They were literally doing an "online store" before the internet existed. You can also look to Blockbuster, which is also famously written about.

The point is that what's obvious post hoc isn't obvious in situ. Sears made a great blunder underestimating the popularity of online stores and continuing operating as normal (not adapting). Given that one of the leaders in the market made such an "obvious" blunder, I don't think we can rule out that others didn't similarly miscalculate.

If you think this is not the case, cool! Argue that! But you should justify it. Say why I'm dumb. Evidence it. But I'm not going to accept your claim if it is premised on people being oracles. They aren't now, we have evidence that they weren't then, so I don't have reason to believe that happened. It also doesn't align well with the order in which businesses failed nor align with explaining why certain ones are still around. You miss that my claim has such an explanation. But you need to actually think about what I said...

I welcome you calling me an idiot. But if you're going to do it, put some serious effort into it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

> If you think this is not the case, cool! Argue that!

This is literally your role here. You are disputing what multiple people have told you. If you think that the 'other value' is enough to keep stores open, then argue that (with numbers, obviously: this is HN, not reddit). If you think that stores aren't adapting, and that's why they're failing, and if they do X they would succeeded, then argue that, and describe X (with numbers, obviously: this is HN, not reddit).

We all know that a store provides more value than a warehouse. But is said extra value able to economically sustain properly-managed stores? The evidence (store closings) points to "mostly no". Your theory says "yes", (and perhaps that the store closings are actually a result of not doing X). Your theory is thus explicitly numbers-based. So how do you expect anyone to argue against the numbers in your theory when you haven't provided any?

As it stands now, your hypothesis is on equal footing, in terms of evidence, with "they didn't pray to the right god enough", and equally unconvincing. This is HN, not reddit: let's hear the specifics, not make random unconvincing claims and insist that proving or disproving them is someone else's job.

I'll get you started on your job of convincing someone other than yourself that your theory holds water, by providing an example with which you can proceed: Let's say we have an "all the XR glasses" store that lets visitors try on different XR glasses and see what fits, and the visitors then later buy them from Amazon because the glasses are cheaper there.

Ok, now your turn: go. How do they stay alive? If you can come up with something feasible and convincing, I might even start this store and give you a cut! :)