ecuzzillo

s/censorship/censure/

Totally unrelated, but only 500k programmers? That seems low.

To create a rich 3D world, you need to model and texture a LOT of objects. Usually, this means hiring an army of 3D modelers and texture artists and having them do that all day for three years. Paying them needs a big budget.

To create a rich 2D world, you probably can get by with one or two talented artist/animators. Yes, they may be in a class of their own, but you don't need nearly so many. Paying them does not need a big budget.

Almost all the interesting games being made nowadays are indie games, and as you say most indie game makers don't have the budget for 3D modelers. Not all of them necessarily want this effect, but I'd still say that this could have a pretty big impact.

I liked the interview, but I didn't like the article interpreting it. In particular, they bash the X of Y pattern, but Tesla is the Apple of cars. No X of Y moniker is ever perfectly accurate, but that one is close enough to give somebody who's never heard of Tesla a general idea of its goal, which is the whole point of saying we are the X of Y. If people have already heard of you, you can just say your name; it doesn't and shouldn't occur to you to describe yourself as the X of Y.

It's unfortunate that an interview that should be encouraging to uncertain hackers was twisted into another way to bash new uncertain things.

Rosberg was losing 1.7 seconds a lap because of rubber in his front wing, and he started the race on tyres that has done two runs in qualifying. It is the general consensus that Red Bull do have a performance advantage, but it's nowhere near 2 seconds.

Yes, of course, but I and everybody I talk to find it incredibly obnoxious that it ignores the space.

Unrelatedly terrible results: https://www.google.com/search?q=mac+ros+pcl+download+hangs+f...

It often gets completely ignored.

Almost all phase 2 startups will be worth zero, or nearly zero. Some will be worth $BIGNUM. If you invest in the latter, you will be rich irrespective of whether you invested at a valuation of $BIGNUM/100 or $BIGNUM/200. If you invest in the former, you will not be rich.

Moreover, whatever money you make on any startups that do not make $BIGNUM is rounding error by comparison.

Seems to me like the bottom two are not really disagreements. For the second to last, if they gave you terms, you'd invest, right?

For the last, you presumably aren't deciding whether to meet with them based on the deck; it's just nice to be able to review it so your mind is prepared.

I should point out that it doesn't matter how long it takes to downshift as long as you're in the right gear by the time you start turning.

One of the most common failures of understanding I come across when people first start trying to use git is that there are two dimensions of parallelism: between branches in one repo, and between repos. This can't address that, as I understand it, because it works on one repo at a time.

Even with the softest suspension, you usually have to spin out and catch a wheel rim on a curb to get a car to roll over, unless you have really high center of mass (like some non-crossover SUV's, like the 1990s Jeep Grand Cherokee).

s/both your time/both your time and theirs/

It's hard to find high school girls who are really stoked about Valve. I suspect the video reflected that ratio.

It wants me to log in with Twitter. Why?

I clearly remember stages in my life and particular forums in which I have been exactly 'bad', 'confused', and 'good', and this seems like a useful distinction.

It requires much more forum experience to identify what kind of comment causes insipid comment threads than it does to write a good comment in the first place.

That said, you could probably just measure someone's comment quality and their vote quality independently and get a lot of the benefit, with fewer errors from rigid categorization.

It definitely isn't easier to raise money than to get a job. People just expect it to be nigh-impossible to raise money, and that everybody deserves a job, because that's how it used to be.

Also, there is a massive demand for code that works, but most people seem aware that just hiring whatever the cat drags in seems not to result in code that works, so they make these barriers.

I honestly have no idea whether said barriers do a good job, and it seems like basically nobody is trying to measure it. You'd have to record the outcomes for hires and no-hires, i.e. admitting that you wish you never hired someone, or that you wish you had because they went on to invent sliced bread, and that requires testicles of carbon fiber.

Trying to maximize your share of individual deals causes you to lose the best deals. This is because a) the best deals are often expensive, and b) maximizing your share empirically causes people to consider you a dick, and people with reputations for being dicks don't get chosen by the best startups.

I'm genuinely curious: why is that exciting? I don't know a huge amount about the web stack.

I don't know about that. He was reacting against the mythology of the idea and ignorance of execution. It still might be (and I would argue in some cases it was with him) that there exist "great men" such that if you remove them, the product is wildly shittier, whereas if you remove almost anybody else in the process, the product is not necessarily that much worse.

Steam for Linux just came out of beta, and they marketed that fact fairly heavily.

Sure, but spam is already reasonably under control here; post-spam-filter, those things could be predictive, along with other things nobody thinks of.

I suspect that that is only the default interpretation because the site has gone so far downhill and there are so many nasty stupid comments.

Why not

a) put stuff you've done up on the web so people can see that it's cool and doesn't suck;

b) email random cool places you'd like to work (e.g. startups)

c) practice interviewing

?

It might be true, though, that there is a large equivalence class of companies that can trade CEO's well, and interesting consumer tech companies are just not in that equivalence class. It seems like Coke and Levi Strauss could trade, for example, and be fine, or something.

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everybody drops to zero, and yet people buy stock.

Do you have an anecdote on this topic?

Yes, he was billionaire-ish from Microsoft, and I imagine he does believe in what he's doing, so I guess he's not intentionally a bloodsucking asshole, but I don't know that that makes it that much better.