Yeah, the laptop example was not the best.

Anyway, the point of the triangle (if there is one) is an easy to remember example to show that the 3 factors are "related".

Of course you can get all 3. You just need to have a loose enough requirement for all 3 relative to the difficulty of the task/project.

But what happens when we are planning out your project and you say "any way you can finish it sooner?", or "can it also do this", or "can you put a faster processor in it (a measure of 'good' ...), or "that's outside our budget, get it done for 5k less". The point is that to get more of one, you need to sacrifice one of the other two (usually money or time). That is usually true enough, and even when its not is useful to keep people from pushing unrealistic demands on a project team.

The falsehood of the example is really in the assumption that you'll get even two of those satisfied. Too many projects come in slower and more expensive and still don't deliver quality.

Anyway, it kind of reminds me of a dialogue quote from the film "Idiocracy"

The triangle reminds me of that. No one is ever meant to sacrifice on good. Reminding them of the relationship is meant to get you more money or at least more time to finish.