methodover

When I was younger, around 19 or so, I contemplated death for the first time. I grew up religious, Catholic, and always believed that you go on after death. This was the first time I imagined the truth.

It stunned me. I couldn’t sleep. I could NOT imagine non-existence. It terrofied me.

In the next few years I learned more about the world and grew far more comfortable with my place in it. I don’t feel nearly as puzzled about nonexistence as I used to.

For me, I see myself as a cell in a greater body — humanity — and I see humanity as part of an even greater whole, the universe. Does a single cell worry about its fate after death? No. It merely does what it is supposed to do, does it well if it can, and then ends gracefully when its time has come.

I feel the same way about my own life. I am part of a whole, humanity at one level, the universe itself at another. I do my best with the limited time I have; I do my duty; and then I die.

I have grown quite comfortable with this view of life and death over the years. It gives nonexistence found at the end of life its appropriate meaning. It is the natural end of a temporal life.

Only esports and “publishing” is going to be cut from Blizzard, supposedly. I’m not sure what publishing means precisely. Game development isn’t being cut, I believe.

You seem to not understand what this issue is about. It’s tech crunch’s fault. They did a terrible job of reporting on this issue.

This is a great point, and something that seems a bit lost in the discussion:

In StarCraft 2, the game IS the interface. That is to say, the developers have constructed the game in such a way as to be difficult to control; and human mastery of the interface is a large percentage of the game. Strategy in the game is important, of course -- but this is not chess, where human beings are not limited by the interface of the game. In StarCraft, you are intentionally given a limited interface to monitor and control a gigantic game while under incredibly tight time controls.

And I should also note that Blizzard is extremely reluctant to add features that make it easier to control the game. I have a friend who works on the StarCraft 2 team. We talked at length about this one feature that he designed and proposed for the team to make a specific aspect of the game friendlier towards players. It was turned down for exactly the reasoning above -- the game is the interface. By making the game easier to control, it disrupts the entire experience; an StarCraft 2 that is easier to control is no longer StarCraft 2.

LeelaChess is one example for Chess.

https://github.com/LeelaChessZero/lczero

> So, yes, I came out of the closet every morning

This is an unfortunate and juvenile joke in an otherwise great post.

This story is absolutely heartbreaking. This young man died alone, trying to ration his $1300/mo insulin.

Does anyone know if there are startups trying to tackle this specific problem? I would be curious about learning more about them. I don't understand why a company doesn't just come in and massively undercut the competition.

For sure, a service like Steam offers tons of value for a game developer. And I’m sure you’re right that the price of Steam matches the cost of an individual developer developing a launcher and hosting service. That’s all true.

But I feel like the margins for Steam are so wide that it’s wide open for undercutting; for others to offer a cheaper, probably better product. I’d hope that game hosting quickly becomes commoditized due to lots of competitors vying for the cheapest possible price.

That’s good for developers, and really good for gamers.

I appreciate the precision!

> I am surprised that ... are able to command as high a margin as they do for sales commission.

Yep. Me too. I’ve long thought that Steam charges way too much considering the platform. There would seem to be tons of room for a competitor to undercut Steam. I’m excited about Discord’s new store.

Revenue share is a killer for a business, especially as one as volatile as computer games. Any game needs to be 25% better than it otherwise would have been because of Steam’s revenue share. Does it really bring that much to the table? In 2018? Enough to justify their absolutely enormous cost?

> China has historically valued orderliness, collective well-being, and personal sacrifice. This sucks from a Western perspective, but it also means that a great many of the problems the West faces will never manifest in China.

Like what?

We need to figure out how to better persuade people to get their kids vaccinated. Perhaps a mix of education targeted at families who claim these exemptions, and fines to represent the negative externality of their choices?

This may sound like a stupid question, but did the Chinese people vote for this? Was there a democratic process?

Does anyone know of a cookbook that provides complete meals? The ones I’ve had recommended all assume you kinda know what you want to make. But I want someone else to tell me what to make, and I’ll just put it all together.

If investors don’t like the dual stock structure, they don’t have to invest. What am I missing? Why should congress step in to ban something that by virtue of these existing investors, some people are fine with?

Crazy idea—

A new NASA program designed to intercept “interesting” asteroids like this one.

The next time one shows up we could actually check it out.

Wearable bulletproof jackets make much more sense to me than a handgun for practical defense.

I have lived in Oakland for the last 5 years, in nice areas. During that time:

- Brian Bore, a 30 year old data scientist was walking home from a bar just down the street from where I lived at the time, and was shot dead. They never caught the murderer. [1]

- A couple blocks away from my office in downtown Oakland, a woman was shot by a stay bullet during the day, [2] and teen's funeral was attacked and a 16-year old girl was killed. [3]

There have been other incidents as well, for which I do not have news sources: My S/O at the time was held up at gunpoint and his wallet and phone stolen. My morning coffee place had a mugging at gunpoint at 10 AM on Saturday morning (I arrived a half hour after it happened).

Our city is plagued by gun violence. It disturbs me greatly.

However, I don't think getting a gun myself makes sense. I have no problem with a gun for protection, but the kind of gun violence we face in this city is not the kind that is easily solved with a pistol. When someone has a gun trained on you and is trying to mug you, a gun of your own is not likely to help with that situation. If you're hit by a stray bullet, that's another situation that a gun of your own doesn't help with. And for just drive-by shootings, or whatever happened to Brian Bore, a gun of your own doesn't help at all.

A lightweight bulletproof jacket makes a LOT more sense.

Consider me an interested buyer. I wonder how light it is -- the jacket in the video looks pretty hefty.

1. https://abc7news.com/news/former-nasa-scientist-fatally-shot...

2. https://abc7news.com/news/innocent-bystander-hurt-in-oakland...

3. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Downtown-Oakland-rush...

This is a fucking awful blog post. Just because you aren’t offended by it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed. That’s an awful argument.

It’s trivial to avoid these racially charged words when programming. So just do it.

Like, if a subordinate at work came to me and was like, “I wish we could do X, it would make me feel better about working here,” and X is some trivial thing, it kind of doesn’t matter what it is. It doesn’t matter if I don’t understand it. I just fucking do it. It’s trivial, it makes them happy. It costs me nothing to do. I happily pay $0 to make a happier employee.

This principle isn’t hard, and pays huge dividends in life: listen to people, and when they tell you something bothers them and it costs you little to fix, fix it, even if you don’t understand it.

> Trade and manufacturing from cheap, and some say abusive, labor practices have done nothing to improve human rights for China

Your comments were narrow — you only cited “human rights”, which yes, China is abysmal. But what about quality of life in general? My understanding is that QOL has gone up dramatically in China.

Yes, but what’s the actual strategy? According to Woodward’s book, Trump’s true opinion is that “Trade is bad.” These tarrifs aren’t negotiating chips — something unpalatable to get what he wants. They’re what he wants.

You’re wrong about minority rights. They ought to be specifically labeled and supported under that label.

You’re wrong about the benefits a company and its workers enjoy from specifically protecting itself against allowing in the animus that exists outside the workplace. Being an inclusive workplace which goes out of its way to accommodate minorities carries a small price — but pays excellent dividends. Doing this in no way would alienate any prospective employee — except a person like yourself, which seems 100% okay to me.

This is a joke response, right?

In case not, you’re way over thinking this. In points one and three, you’re looking to try and give something like compensation for these individual things. You’re not looking at (1) the value of being an accommodating, inclusive company or (2) that an individual who doesn’t take advantage of those particular accommodations enjoys other ones.

Your whole point about point four is silly. You don’t need some gigantic transparent democratic process to let some enterprising employees take it upon themselves to do a cool project like blackbirds. Just let them go do it.

About the women in tech conference, Grace Hopper allows men to attend; seems reasonable to follow their lead.

I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole.

As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching out to or accommodating minorities, and you tell me which ones are objectionable to you and why. Here goes:

1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers

2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference

3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week

4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot)

> We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for.

Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable?

> Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?

Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus.

It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet."

Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected.

> Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies

??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about?

> Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree

Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest.

As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

Oh, I see. You think that when I said that companies need to say openly and explicitly that they're cool with minorities, that this was a complete description of everything the company should do and say about the issue of unjust discrimination. Of course, I didn't say that. You read that in. It wasn't a complete description, just something I thought companies should also be doing. But that's fine, let me be clear now: In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender.

There. All better?

> In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all.

It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there.

> You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there

They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine.

> So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.

Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?

> Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones, then you’re in favor of gay rights.

This is not complicated.

> I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against.

Never said that you were.

> I am noticing an implication on your part that animus against white people, or animus against men, is acceptable and welcome in the workplace.

Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there.

Perhaps you ought to read a bit more carefully.

> I don’t want to be in a politicized workplace just because the governing ideology is supposedly for my benefit.

Workplaces need to say openly and often that, for every minority that's traditionally experienced discrimination in this country, "<minority> are equal and will always be treated with dignity, will be afforded the same benefits, and animus against <minority> will never be tolerated."

If this count as "politicizing" the workplace, then, well, I'd say politicize away.

> I've never seen any of these ideas openly expressed in the workplace, or for that matter, anywhere.

Animus against minorities is real. It's not made up. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't real.

Is this animus experienced by every member of every minority for every waking moment? No, that was a bit of an exaggeration, sure. But the animus is definitely not zero, like you suggest.

You might benefit from educating yourself about feminism, race relations, and gay rights.