xyience

As far as I'm aware the state of the art tooling at some studios is far greater than any demos from the Lisp world, though I don't think it's beyond a much smaller number of Lisp programmers to accomplish. e.g. one simple feature being able to take any pixel on the screen and trace back through what calls produced it. Studios also usually support live changes as you edit code/data (often times the code is in a simpler language like Lua when it doesn't need to be core code, I hope no one pretends C++ is anywhere close to as flexible at changing live as Lisp...), and of course all sorts of world / level / map editors with varying degrees of integration with your asset pipeline -- having a "game"/simulation whose purpose is to build your actual game is often nicer to work in than the code such a tool outputs directly, even after a macro treatment. I don't care if object x is at vector v and y is at vector u, I just want this character standing here and that character standing there, and maybe have a tool to quickly snap them to the same plane. (Incidentally this uncaring about absolute values in the coordinate system at least up front is what turned me off from PovRay on Linux...)

Then there's a rich variety of third party tooling for specific things you become aware of when you start to have studio levels of money to buy licenses, and those typically don't have Lisp wrappers.

Still, CEPL is pretty sweet, and in the related bin it's neat to see things like Flappybird-from-the-ground-up-in-the-browser through ClojureScript and Figwheel. For a beginner who doesn't have access to the best tooling in the industry, or even an amateur who just wants to make a simple game, there are a lot of good (and good enough) options. Even behemoths IDEs that force you to relaunch a scene to load your newly compiled changes aren't so bad, given that because the language you're working in probably starts with C it's also a given that state management is harder than with more functional-programming-friendly languages so it's much easier to reason about your game scene when you're always starting with a fresh state. Raw OpenGL with C++ should probably be discouraged unless the person is explicitly aiming to become a pro at a big studio (in which case they might be better off learning DirectX)...

Perhaps overly generalizing, most everyone's portfolio is a poor approximation of the overall market with extra fees taking away even more -- hence the index funds tracking the overall market (or just the traditional top companies like S&P 500) will generally do better. When the market goes tits up, pretty much everyone will take a hit at the same time, index-fund holders and people with more specific portfolios alike. The people that won't be hit hard will be those with more "safe" investments (that don't outpace inflation...) like bonds, those who saw it coming and invested in negative-indexes, or those who get lucky with e.g. penny stocks / startups.

Simpler article (with a proof): http://oyhus.no/CorrelationAndCausation.html

Edit: also regarding the last sentence, "...because all we have to help us establish causal relationships is correlation". The work of Pearl et al. give us quite a bit more: http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/if-correlation-doesnt-impl...

Or repurpose any of the other things you can buy after the security line: http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/

It's a common English idiom, but even though I've been here over twice as long as your account date I can't say I've noticed an infestation of "curious" comments... though given curiosity is a hacker virtue, perhaps it's not surprising there may be more of it here? I still am genuinely curious how GGP would have dev boards priced instead -- the market is pretty much limited to students (the ones at good schools have the schools pay for the boards, or the schools get discounts) or professionals (who again expense through their company), what's the incentive to lower prices?

http://allendowney.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-retreat-from-rel... This blogger has been covering the phenomenon among college freshmen since 2008. Notably the most recent results segregate none, atheist, and agnostic whereas before it was just 'none', but the effects are the same regardless of which label you want to associate with / avoid.

Personally I think the actual cultural movement towards 'atheism' is simple Leftism. Most people may still believe in the belief of God and thus differ from atheists on the ontological question, but their beliefs about the world in general are vastly different from those of their (for some religions, even still living) ancestors of the same declared denomination and those beliefs are in conflict with classic doctrine.

That fight was lost a long time ago.

8 hours / day over 5 days, or 40 hours a week however you like, is a magic number with no real psychological basis. It certainly didn't come about for the benefit of creatives, the subgroup of software devs who can and often do benefit from far more than 40 hours per week "working" and who only by putting in more hours can accomplish their goals. Try telling Michelangelo that if only he had forced himself to stick to 40 hours a week he could have accomplished all he did and even more greatness. Zoning out probably happens to us all, but some are quite capable of limiting it in duration and/or frequency by quite a large degree, or turning it to 'productive zoning out' whereby you progress on a relatively boring task while thinking of other things, some of which might even be what you'll do once the boring groundwork is complete. Another case, try telling a kid he can become as great as Lee Sedol by only practicing Go and playing games for a maximum of 40 hours a week. Better yet, tell Lee Sedol himself that he could get stronger by playing and studying less! And in our actual field: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=JohnCarmack et al.

It's quite possible for x work + y frustration and self loathing to be x=0 and y=30 as you hope no one notices you coming in late / leaving early and being totally vague about progress during daily meetings. I think those behaviors and 'zoning out' are mostly orthogonal to hours 'worked', though.

There's probably some agreement somewhere. I do think a lot of 80 hour, 100 hour work week boasting is just that, boasting, and surely for some doesn't really translate to that many hours of "real work". It comes from creative accounting of work hours and I think is rooted in a poor work/rest of life separation. Think about your startup for a while during dinner? I guess you're technically working, huh? Or for video game testers, your bugs filed / hour playing the game looking for bugs isn't a nice flat line with a sharp drop off after 8 hours, but a lot of people out of the industry will say "you're just playing a video game over and over for 12+ hours a day for weeks and call that work?".

My impression: PMs are way overvalued. As a simple engineer, can I volunteer to be the guy doing the important work of fetching the hash browns in exchange for a big multi-ten-thousand dollar increase in pay? (I'll skip being blown by the press.) I can even speak with the store manager to assure them that yes, I really want to buy > $50 of food!

I'm curious, how would you recommend they be priced?