Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack Leaves Meta

facebook.com

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#691

I’m a strong believer in dictatorship at companies. Every team has someone with ultimate decision making power, as does every project with a project leader, and above teams are leaders who have authority above them, and so on. Of course there are meetings and discussions but there is always someone with the authority to make a decision that everyone has to respect. Honestly it benefits everyone. ICs like that authori…

Finding good devs is hard enough without a dictatorial style of leadership. I find that people like democracy, for some reason.

Most people like the idea of taking decisions and hate the idea of taking responsibility for them.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#694
post #663

Seems a little off to be calling out perf metrics when the whole system hasn't found product-market fit yet

5% is a metaphor. Read that part again.

The opening paragraph says "we have a good product". No, you have a good device, it's not the same thing. Maybe he thinks org ineffeciency is about not covering enough product use cases but the other parts of the post suggest focus on technical characteristics as the metric to measure success. Obviously he is way smarter than me so what do I know but that's what I see.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#695

I’m a strong believer in dictatorship at companies. Every team has someone with ultimate decision making power, as does every project with a project leader, and above teams are leaders who have authority above them, and so on. Of course there are meetings and discussions but there is always someone with the authority to make a decision that everyone has to respect. Honestly it benefits everyone. ICs like that authori…

The trade off is decision cycle time. In a dictatorship, the dictator (and getting their attention) becomes a bottleneck.

OP isn't saying that the person with ultimate authority has to be involved in every decision, just that when they do make a decision everyone respects it. You can have the kind of authority that OP is describing while still delegating most decisions to the individual contributors. You just need someone who is officially empowered to make the final call in cases where there's disagreement.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#696

"I have never been able to kill stupid things before they cause damage" One of the most important things an organization can have is a "no man". A project that I was involved in when I worked at Google was completed on time primarily because we had a very senior (DE level) engineer tangentially involved in the project. He was near the end of his career, and he just didn't give a f* about politics. He'd sit in design…

The part about not giving a fuck is crucial. You don't get rewarded for preventing bad things.

You can, but only in the long run, and only if you’re saying “yes” to good things too. We’ve all probably worked with someone who just says no to everything and manages to kill both good ideas and bad. That leads to stagnation, which can be even worse than trying and failing at a bunch of different ideas.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#697
post #626

I see a lot of negative comment on the other thread and on twitter so I feel the need to comment as well. It’d be great to get the perspective from someone who worked there, but I can offer mine as an outsider (worked on a different team at fb). Back then, I would religiously read every workplace posts from Carmack (that wasn’t hidden to other orgs). I loved everything he was saying, I always found it really insightf…

I feel like Metas 'flatness' is revealing itself as suboptimal now that its stock is tanking. While the product is generating money and productivity doesn't really matter, the organization can afford to have masses of engineers doing not much of anything. But when things are going bad and clear top down organization is needed, then this culture suddenly turns into massive friction and might end up killing the company.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#698
post #690

The thing about 5% gpu utilization makes me wonder if all this talk about training LLMs on multi A100 clusters is largely unecessary and that it might be possible for everyday GPUs to reach say A100 levels simply by going from 5% utilization to 90%.

He's not literally talking about 5% GPU utilization. It's a metaphor for the eng org being inefficient.

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#699
For those without FB/Reader mode:

I resigned from my position as an executive consultant for VR with Meta. My internal post to the company got leaked to the press, but that just results in them picking a few choice bits out of it. Here is the full post, just as the internal employees saw it:

------------- This is the end of my decade in VR.

I have mixed feelings.

Quest 2 is almost exactly what I wanted to see from the beginning – mobile hardware, inside out tracking, optional PC streaming, 4k (ish) screen, cost effective. Despite all the complaints I have about our software, millions of people are still getting value out of it. We have a good product. It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place. It all could have happened a bit faster and been going better if different decisions had been made, but we built something pretty close to The Right Thing.

The issue is our efficiency.

Some will ask why I care how the progress is happening, as long as it is happening?

If I am trying to sway others, I would say that an org that has only known inefficiency is ill prepared for the inevitable competition and/or belt tightening, but really, it is the more personal pain of seeing a 5% GPU utilization number in production. I am offended by it.

[edit: I was being overly poetic here, as several people have missed the intention. As a systems optimization person, I care deeply about efficiency. When you work hard at optimization for most of your life, seeing something that is grossly inefficient hurts your soul. I was likening observing our organization's performance to seeing a tragically low number on a profiling tool.]

We have a ridiculous amount of people and resources, but we constantly self-sabotage and squander effort. There is no way to sugar coat this; I think our organization is operating at half the effectiveness that would make me happy. Some may scoff and contend we are doing just fine, but others will laugh and say “Half? Ha! I’m at quarter efficiency!”

It has been a struggle for me. I have a voice at the highest levels here, so it feels like I should be able to move things, but I’m evidently not persuasive enough. A good fraction of the things I complain about eventually turn my way after a year or two passes and evidence piles up, but I have never been able to kill stupid things before they cause damage, or set a direction and have a team actually stick to it. I think my influence at the margins has been positive, but it has never been a prime mover.

This was admittedly self-inflicted – I could have moved to Menlo Park after the Oculus acquisition and tried to wage battles with generations of leadership, but I was busy programming, and I assumed I would hate it, be bad at it, and probably lose anyway.

Enough complaining. I wearied of the fight and have my own startup to run, but the fight is still winnable! VR can bring value to most of the people in the world, and no company is better positioned to do it than Meta. Maybe it actually is possible to get there by just plowing ahead with current practices, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

Make better decisions and fill your products with “Give a Damn”!

Re: John Carmack Leaves Meta

#700

I’m a strong believer in dictatorship at companies. Every team has someone with ultimate decision making power, as does every project with a project leader, and above teams are leaders who have authority above them, and so on. Of course there are meetings and discussions but there is always someone with the authority to make a decision that everyone has to respect. Honestly it benefits everyone. ICs like that authori…

I've come to agree, 100%.

Every company needs a benevolent dictator with exceptional taste who is addicted to simplicity. This can be a platform architect, this can be a product person, etc.

But without that person, with design-by-consensus, you end up with a company that is addicted to complexity, building a product that looks like it was disparate components that have been continually stuck on the end with duct tape.

This is why we have the bystander effect, and why in EMS, you need to point to someone and assign them the responsibility of calling 911. There needs to be one person accountable, otherwise there is no one accountable.

Post reply on HN