Yep totally, one of the things I love about Sci-Fi is that there could be a mix of The Culture, The Belt, and Nasa based stories and it's all Sci-Fi. I happen to be a massive fan of near future Sci-Fi because I draw hope from it. I love Foundation and The Culture also but they are SO big that for me it's hard to tell the difference between fantasy and "High Tech Sci-Fi" often. The Expanse feels within reasonable reach, The Martian or For All Mankind much more so and given the events in the world that means a lot IMO.
I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, so at the risk of repeating myself, how does The Martian not qualify as Sci-Fi, hard Sci-Fi at that? Sure the majority of the tech exists today but not all of it (habs, the ships themselves, etc) and certainly not all of the tech has actually been built or tested.
So it's set in the future, it's about scientists and science, it's about a big idea (even more so when it was written) - sending human's to Mars, and it's fiction. Honestly I don't understand how that can't be Sci-Fi through and through. Is it because the tech isn't vastly advanced over what we have now? Because 30 years ago smart phones were Sci-Fi, in 1870 submarines were Sci-Fi, in 1634 the moon and it's relationship with the Earth (Kepler's Somnium) was Sci-Fi. If those qualify I'm not sure how The Martian fails to.
Again not offended at this, just really curious how people draw that conclusion.
Sure, I'm more than happy to debate if The Martian is Sci-Fi or not. I actually don't feel offended about that at all. I disagree that it's not but certainly not offended. I was offended, actually annoyed but whatever, to suggest that The Martian couldn't inspire anyone because it's was practical in it's approach. I've watched it inspire my son, I've personally been inspired. It's clearly dismissive of the work and that is frustrating and annoying to me.
Um Science fiction is literally fiction about science. I'm not sure how ANY definition of Sci-Fi doesn't fit The Martian. It's about Scientist's using Science to do something that we literally can't do today. We believe we know how to travel and land on Mars and we are probably absolutely correct. We haven't done it yet. I don't see how The Martian doesn't qualify.
Showing what life on Mars would REQUIRE is too narrow? Too local? Yes it's about one person surviving but it's also about what it required to survive on Mars, the political reality of what space exploration depends on. Did he miss the head of Nasa making decisions about how events effect funding? The PR department handling the news so that it plays well? How is this not about heroic scale space exploration?
Not to be offensive but this article made me feel dumber just reading it. THE MARTIAN isn't enough to inspire people to pursue science? Why? Because it uses clever ideas to "work the problem"? I'm not sure about his background but that is pretty much the only way to solve problems in the real world. Servers down you "work the problem", a researcher who doesn't understand why data looks like it does - "work the problem", trapped on Mars - "work the problem". Then he talks about reality and how Sci-Fi doesn't match up with reality!?
Including political realities is absolutely important when designing technology to solve large scale problems. Acting like SciFi (Andy Weir, Star Trek, and Neil Stephenson are all good examples) doesn't address that is a shitty shallow analysis. The Martian, is mostly an adventure story but Project Hail Mary deals with the political reality heavily and TNG talked about political reality and social issues and in fact the best episodes revolved around that. As someone that is an engineer, a life long SciFi fan, and am studying to change careers as a scientist (Biology/Data Science) this article reads seems pretty terrible as analysis/criticism of Sci-Fi like someone that has never actually built anything.
Almost no one can do game development as a small company without a large platform of some kind. The economies of scale are just too much for small indie dev style game studios to overcome. Speaking as someone that was an indie dev and has been around the game industry for 20 years. I highly doubt that is going to change anytime soon. Webassembly certainly won't fix that issue. I'm not sure what that comment has to do with the subject. With Webassembly you won't have to pay for server side gpu but you will have to pay for discovery, hosting/bandwidth, payment, likely some form of advertising, and some level of support. There is no free lunch and large platforms will nearly always win for software distribution.
And Streaming games does that even better over WebRTC in the browser and we have that today! With a good internet connection (like 5g that is rolling out) the experience is fantastic. I bought my kids iPad Mini's for christmas, they have both 5g and we have 1gb internet at home and GeForce Now and XBox Cloud Gaming have been absolutely great for them. A ps5 controller and the ipad mini can be the best gaming device available today IMO.
Quest hardware doesn't suck though. The future of VR/AR is absolutely wireless and absolutely NOT PC based. PC VR is a niche market and always will be. I have a Rift and rarely use because who wants to be tied to a wired device that you can't see? Facebook has made a ton of mistakes and I'm really not fan but working on the Quest that was not one of them.
100% I was a massive Google VR/AR adopter. Usually I'm a big iOS fan but I switched for a while because of Google's work there. I believe strongly that AR is the next major platform but I HIGHLY doubt Google will have a place in that market. They ignored Daydream and then killed it. ARCore is terrible to work with and pretty far behind ARKit and even Unity/Unreal's AR lib's. I'll never trust Google again given how terrible they have been to AR/VR.
For a company with the resources of Apple? I'd imagine their Threat Hunting/Identification and classification systems are top notch. There are a number of know taxonomies for different attacks around and I'm quite sure Apple has some automation around identifying those attacks. It even addresses that many will be false positives. Example taxonomy: https://us-cert.cisa.gov/CISA-National-Cyber-Incident-Scorin...
I wonder if this could be used to expose those that are in sensitive position. IE offer attacks at people you think are in important positions and watch how they react to the news. For example if you work somewhere sensitive and you have an accounts not tied the Apple account. The State Sponsored group is probably good enough to see your traffic patterns and to see if they change after you have been notified. Not that I think Apple shouldn't do this but I can see someone being crafty and trying to take advantage of this. There are always trade offs in security!
I've seen this be sorta true over the last 25 years at numerous places but only in limited environments where 99% of the code written was scripting based web languages. I most often work in Python now professionally (mostly security), at home it's C++ and Swift (gamedev). In Python/Js web work that holds some truth, in Security a little more, but in data science/engineering A LOT less where Jupyter and PyCharm are huge. My outside work is 100% in IDE's, XCode - CLion - PyCharm - Intellij, and in game dev or mobile native app dev? The vast majority of great developers are on IDE's. So to me drawing that conclusion is very risky in general and often bad advice to give to Jr's IMO unless they have a very narrow focus on the Web.
To be clear on my opinion you can integrate blueprints and CPP code but it's not as seemless as I'd like. Given that blueprints run in a VM and your CPP code doesn't there are certainly blocks. They are working on fixing that (https://docs.unrealengine.com/4.27/en-US/ProgrammingAndScrip...) for example. I'm impressed with the quality of blueprints but would still rather approach software from a text based approach and a low level approach. I also hate working in JS frameworks and big collections of libraries all bundled together.
Not a massive fan of Blueprints, as a game developer who is also a long time software developer/security engineer. I think for non-coders it's a great system and can be helpful to view data flow/execution paths in a visual way. I wish the C++ and blueprints systems where better integrated. For example being able to generate one from the other or directly import and use each other (you can sorta do that but with limited access and some boiler plate). I'm not disparaging it, it is really a great attempt at visual coding but as a developer it's not a setup I'd choose to use pretty much ever. For me the best use would be for a non-coder game designer to use it to script levels and for me to integrate seemlessly from C++ as a dev and since I'm a single person indie dev it's of less use to me. It doesn't seem quite ready for that. Most games and examples I've seen with it are either blueprints or C++ not a lot of mixing yet that I've seen, though there is certainly some.
Battlefield 2042 has a portal mode (their name for it) that allows gamers to "design" a mixup of a variety of older and current battlefield game assets, maps, and modes to create a new game experience with other gamers. For a similar concept in platformers look at Super Mario Maker 1/2 which are AMAZINGLY good games and software for designing mario levels. Here is a link to the Battlefield 2042 documentation: https://help.ea.com/en/help/battlefield/battlefield-2042/bat...
Because that is absolutely unlikely in the extreme. I've worked with and lead teams of outsourced non-US developers. It very often (not always but much more often) ends unfavorably compared to local-ish remote teams or local in office teams. Language barriers, culture barriers, infrastructure issues (quality of internet/phone, regional software restrictions, export restrictions, contract work vs regular employees, etc....) are too much to over come in the majority of cases.
Software teams are almost always better run with small groups of highly skilled developers that can and want to work closely together. Think special ops vs regular infantry platoon. Outside of FaaNG not many companies are working on projects that require a large number of devs.
Now a days, it's very much true. I've worked for FAANG companies, a number of mid-major sized tech/internet companies, have had a engineering job for 20+ years, been a CTO and co-founded a VC backed company. All without any degree, in fact in the 20+ years in the field I've never once been out of work. Early in my career I was rejected a couple of times for lack of degree but I can't even remember the last time I was asked about a degree. I know a number of other long term successful non-degree engineers also. So unless you have solid data to back that up, I'd agree strongly for it not being bullshit. The only tech field that I can see that argument for is higher level Data Scientists and that's clearly becoming less and less of a requirement also.
Even as a staff engineer it's not worth trying to fix. Run, run as fast as you can. It's one of my questions I always ask, even for front end based gigs. How does DevOps/Infra work at your place. Unless they have a gleam in their eye or they say that developers can so most of it or a DevOps resource is embedded on each team I run.
As a Staff Engineer it's a no win situation, if you recommend changes the current team hates you. If you don't and try to change things slowly or just tweak things to build trust, most managers are upset that you aren't "moving the needle". The only way I've made that work was to be in complete control and to go scorched earth. Loudly and often state the issues and to have solutions in the back pocket. Basically be unafraid to make the existing team hate you. To be clear I've only been here once and I TRIED to work with them. I didn't last long after righting the ship because I grew to hate the company and working there.
Totally, it's the low hanging fruit of the political discussion. Someone says something that should change, instead of attacking the argument they point and yell look they aren't perfect!!! We can't listen to them.
I'm done with you, clearly you have a bone to pick with Environmental activists or more likely you are a troll trying to get a rise out of people that care about. I never said they were prefect, that's not a requirement to do good now. Yes they laid of workers here but they pay living wages in those outsourced countries. Many of them FAR closer to the raw materials. If fact outsourcing manufacturing has at times been found to be a wash in terms of environmental impacts. Finished products are often much smaller and less impactful to ship than raw materials. I don't know that is the case here but unless you can so prove that it's Environmentally damaging to outsource their product your are spouting bullshit. Beyond that Patagonia sells their products all over the world so no one aside form them has any clue if it's a negative impact or not. Also how do you know they haven't invested in new methods of producing artificial fibers? Also since when do you need to be a materials scientist to care about the environment? Also they use a TON of wool in their products. I've tried to buy their products, they are normally cut in a manner that doesn't work well for me - slim and tapered, often when I wanted it was because of the wool usage as it's a great material for outdoor clothing.
I also grew up in a evangelical Christian fundamentalist family (Pentacostal - Church of God with snake handling and speaking in tongues, the whole crazy line of shit), so I feel like I'm pretty aware of that line of hypocrisy. To say that environmental leadership in for-profit companies is ANYTHING like that is lazy cynical bullshit. I can't believe that someone that grew up in that level of shit show could possibly state that, I simply don't understand that AT ALL. Patagonia started and has been a leading member of 1% for the planet, for their website:
donate 1% of annual sales or salary
That's the minimum to be a member. I've done volunteer work with partner orgs and 1% for the planet is a large help for the environment. Tell me again how starting, leading, and donating to that kind of fund is hypocritical? They are committed being as Environmentally sound a company as possible. They make products that are aimed at outdoor and people that care about the environment, their products are huge in hiking, climbing, and fly fishing communities. Sure a large number of people buy their products because of looks or prestige but that has never been their target market. You are talking about a company that actively encourages customers to buy their products used and to reduce/recycle.
To answer your question, which I highly doubt it in good faith, a responsible way to use oil, is to extract it from the environment with the lowest possible risk, placing the planet before profits, and extracting the product in as socially responsible way as possible. Don't drill sensitive areas just because it might be cheaper. Recycle and reuse (Patagonia is one of the best clothing companies actually doing this) as much as possible. Above all else be a responsible steward of the planet and it's environment.
Again I want to be clear, I'm not affiliated with Patagonia in anyway, not an employee nor a customer. What I am is an environmental activist, fly fisher, and outdoor person. To me Patagonia is a model of what an environmentally responsible company should be. I care deeply about climate change and to defeat that we need companies like Patagonia.
That's not at all the case, none of the companies they refused were in their supply chain. Also that's a ridiculous argument, you use this product that EVERYONE in the world uses and modern society demands, but you don't have the right to criticize it? So mining and petroleum companies are allowed to do what ever they want. I can't advocate for cleaner energy because I drive a gas powered vehicle? I can't work towards renewable electricity because I currently use carbon fuel based electricity (the only kind available to me)? It's absurd and a absolutely absurd argument to lay at Patagonia.
I'm sure you could find some crazy ass on the internet preaching that. Patagonia isn't saying that. Plastic used to improve a product isn't bad, it's bad if it's made and the raw materials are gathered in a environmentally destructive manner. That's EXACTLY what Patagonia is trying to criticize. Environmental destruction as part of their supply chain. Do as little harm as they can and still make the best products they can. I'm not even a patagonia customer (sizes run too small for me) but their history of environmental activism should be celebrated IMO.
That is a terrible take and wholly opinion based - NOT ACTUAL REPORTING, no one including Patagonia is saying don't mine or don't use oil based products. It's utter bullshit. We can use those products but be responsible in how we gather them.
It's not a either/or situation. We can work on both, Space and Saving the Earth in fact are likely deeply tied together IMO. Space exploration has so many important technologies needed that I can't imagine it not being a massive step in the right direction.
Yes hopefully all the analysis would happen on device but that limits anything like a google home/alexa. Last I looked neither device allowed processing on device.
I'm a huge privacy advocate but it makes some sense. If the police and government is corrupt and using this tech, creating a non-corrupt open-source community driven alternative to combat the corruption is probably a net win despite the privacy issues. The real win is to destroy the Police surveillance state and tech but we as a people (the US) seem incapable of real policing change. :(
I think that's the root of the problem in software development. Development requires VERY smart people to solve hard(ish) problems. The catch, the majority of problems are stupid simple and easy. So smart developers are generally engaged one or two weeks out of the year, maybe one or two months if there are real tough problems to solve. Then is goes back to wiring up login screens or explaining how JWT's work for the 100th time or setting up DB models and access. It's terribly boring and very uneven. After a while you stop caring until the world is on fire.
This is very similar to my path. I grew up poor and had a bad time in school, so I didn't make it in college as well. Once I started working in the industry though, I went all in all the time. Made myself the kind of engineer that people from startups around. Became a manager, a co-founder, a director, and was incredibly close to accepting a CIO/CTO role. With each goal I found I was less and less happy, eventually I took a boring job at a consulting firm that works with boring industries and Fortune 500 types. I'm a principal engineer and architect and it's boring as hell but it pays incredibly well, is super stable, and I get to go train bjj for 2.5 hours twice a week during the middle of the work day. I'm happier than I've been since I landed that first programming job.