136 karma · joined October 23, 2023
The rest of the team will end up having to go out of their way to accommodate you, your accomplishments won't be as visible, and you'll be passed over for performance-based compensation and/or promotion.
Though I guess that's fine if it's a job you plan to take for a year or whatever and move on.
Then a promotion raise that constitute only 2 years of yearly base raises seems pretty lacking to me since a promotion generally comes with increased responsibilities and higher standards.
I've worked as a developer for companies outside of big tech who complain all day long about the fact that they can't compete with big tech on compensation while they hemorrhage engineers to big tech. I'm sure NYT does the same. No amount of moaning about this will change the fact that they are directly competing with these companies for talent.
I'm not anti-union at all and see them as necessary in certain types of jobs (I hope the Boeing Machinist's Union guts Boeing), but I have no interest in being a part of a union as a developer because it seems like collective bargaining just ends up locking everyone into the level of salary/career progression of the lowest common denominator.
Neither Sony nor MS are doing strict console exclusivity anymore, with MS going as far as to put out their own IPs on Sony consoles.
MS claims there's going to be a next Xbox, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it's basically a computer with some custom version of windows with a console-tailored UI.
So in some ways, PC gaming is healthier than it's ever been as it is gaining a growing market share as the console market share shrinks.
I think what's happening in the PC space is that we've reached a kind of Moore's law for graphical fidelity where we're deep in the diminishing returns part of the curve. Look at Read Dead Redemption 2 for example. It's 6 years old and still goes toe to toe with games coming out now. By contrast compare Crysis (2007) to anything that came out in 2001. Halo, for example. It's a night and day difference. So yeah the highest end hardware (specifically GPUs) has gotten crazy expensive but it's also gotten crazy overkill. A lot of new games are playable on low to mid settings on older and/or more budget hardware, and low settings still look fantastic on many games.
Add to that there's a general distrust right now of AAA studios to actually make a decent product, really great stuff coming out of AA/indie studios, and a lot of people playing only one or two live service games like CoD or Fortnight instead of playing lots of different AAA games and there's less dollars to get thrown at every new 100 million dollar budget game that comes out.
I think we're close to the point where the AAA publishers wake up and realize that it's not tenable for every game that comes out to have 100+ hours worth of content and cost 100+ million dollars, and the industry will be better for it.
I work in an environment right now where feeding proprietary code/docs into 3rd party hosted LLMs is a hard no-go, and we don't have any great locally hosted solution set up yet, so I haven't really taken the dive into actively writing code with LLM assistance. I feel like I should practice this skill, but the idea of using a tool like Cursor on personal projects just seems so antithetical to the point that I can't bring myself to actually do it.
To be clear, I happen to be of the opinion that AI/ML/LLMs/whatever cannot truly replace software engineers without the true advent of AGI.
But to play devil's advocate. I'm an embedded SWE and work with circuit designers/have dabbled in some PCB design myself. Taking circuit design as an example:
From an abstract logic standpoint, PCB design is not that different from software development. It essentially boils down to taking some input and feeding it through a cascade of various discrete transformations until you have some desired output. The fact that PCB designs are captured through schematics is irrelevant, as a schematic is just a visual representation of a netlist. There are even DSLs that allow for the design of circuits through code alone. The mechanisms that make LLMs work show some level of adaptability to domains outside of traditional language. It is totally conceivable today to finetune an LLM on netlists (or even on images of schematics with the right encoder model) and have it be able to generate circuit designs. The training data exists, though it's not as plentiful as say code or english texts. I'm not an ML expert but I believe it's totally possible to have something where, for example, the text "555 timer-based LED-blinking circuit", could map in embedding space to a netlist that describes said circuit. There are in fact companies working on this exact thing today (Flux.ai)
I don't see why this wouldn't work for other engineering disciplines aswell. There's lots of public scad code for various 3d models. It's totally conceivable to build a model trained on scad or even raw 3d object file geometry and text embeddings to generate mechanical designs. Lot's of research is going into generative meshes which could be seen as an early form of this.
I think my point being that the hard part of engineering, discipline aside, is being able to take a fuzzy set of desires from a customer and a fuzzy set of constraints and being able to use the hard math and science to create and iteratively refine a product/system/whatever to make all stakeholders happy. LLMs can't really emulate this process today.
Also not sure what that has to do with the original point, which is that the A15 is not an impressive chip to be manufacturing in the US because it's designed by apple and meant for mobile devices, neither of which are reasons to discount the complexity of the chip.
Sure these don't have the scope or number of transistors of like an NVIDIA Blackwell or something but in terms of performance/watt these are ultra high-end ICs.
Thoughts?
I think VR is super cool. Playing an hour of beatsaber, pistol whip, or superhot is tremendously entertaining. I also get why people aren't flocking to VR in droves. Compared to other forms of entertainment it's expensive, clunky, isolating, and potentially causes motion sickness. I don't believe in the metaverse / AVP future where your average person is going to work 40 hours a week with a headset on or whatever. My fear is that Meta is going to wake up to the fact that the returns for the billions of dollars per year they're burning trying to make Metaverse a thing are never going to materialize and then give up on the whole thing. Why can't VR just be a niche subdomain of the games industry?
If they just accepted it for what it is, VR could be a small but profitable business within Meta's portfolio or a profitable/sustainable spinoff.