Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 675 posts

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#661

Post by Hydraulix989 »

flkenosad wrote: post #588
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't report someone like Carmack to HR, it will only backfire and make your ignorance even more visible. Also, I am not surprised he was reported -- typical underhanded political hustling commonplace at Meta.

Report whoever you want to HR people. Don't listen to this guy ^

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret your comment as not specifically accusatory towards Carmack:

Report someone to HR who deserves to be reported to HR, not someone who gave genuine good-faith (and in this case, correct) technical feedback that unfortunately got in the way of someone else's promo packet / empire building.

There are certainly good reasons to report someone to HR. This is not one of them. Only toxic workplaces tolerate such pettiness. And ultimately, XROS was canned by Boz anyways.

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#662

Post by wilg »

knorker wrote: post #407
wilg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very much not an objective discussion if you are discussing whether it makes sense to develop a new operating system.

How is it not?

Because it's a judgement call about how you weigh and weight various factors, it's inherently subjective.

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#663

Post by knorker »

wilg wrote: post #662
knorker wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it not?

Because it's a judgement call about how you weigh and weight various factors, it's inherently subjective.

It's hard, but it's not subjective.

There are many factors on whether to use a one handed or two handed backhand in tennis. It's subjective which one feels better, but there exists an objective answer to whether it makes a particular player better or not.

And just because it's hard and experts can get it wrong, doesn't mean expertise means nothing and "it's all subjective".

The fact that there exists a right and a wrong definitially means it's objective.

And for the business, or the project, there is a right and a wrong, on whether to build an OS or not. Even if it's very hard to predict, and not feasible to A/B test.

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#664

Post by wilg »

knorker wrote: post #663
wilg wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a judgement call about how you weigh and weight various factors, it's inherently subjective.

It's hard, but it's not subjective. There are many factors on whether to use a one handed or two handed backhand in tennis. It's subjective which one feels better, but there exists an objective answer to whether it makes a particular player better or not. And just because it's hard and experts can get it wrong, doesn't mean expertise means nothing and "it's all subjective". The fact that there exists a right and a wr…

No, it's subjective because there is no right and wrong. The business goals themselves are subjective. There is no right answer to whether you should build an operating system. Very related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#665

Post by bcrl »

killerstorm wrote: post #559
ksec wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love this idea and wondering where that low cost of living place would be. But genuinely asking; What problem are we trying to solve that is not possible right now? Do we start from hardware at the CPU ? I remember one of an ex Intel engineer once said, you could learn about all the decisions which makes modern ISA and CPU uArch design, along with GPU and how it all works together, by the time you have done all that…

Software is bloated and unreliable. It's clearly a "local minimum".

Perverse incentives are everywhere...

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#666

Post by knorker »

wilg wrote: post #664
knorker wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard, but it's not subjective. There are many factors on whether to use a one handed or two handed backhand in tennis. It's subjective which one feels better, but there exists an objective answer to whether it makes a particular player better or not. And just because it's hard and experts can get it wrong, doesn't mean expertise means nothing and "it's all subjective". The fact that there exists a right and a wr…

No, it's subjective because there is no right and wrong. The business goals themselves are subjective. There is no right answer to whether you should build an operating system. Very related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

So you're saying there's no right and wrong decision on whether to make your own OS because Meta has not decided whether it's a public corporation with fiduciary duty or a kindergarten for OS hobbyists to have unproductive wasteful but fun projects in?

So that's like saying there's no right or wrong answer on whether to leave your 15th floor apartment a normal morning via the stairs, or by jumping out of the bathroom window. Yes, actually, there is. Unless your goal is to go splat.

"Will this make the product better", "will this make the product deliver sooner", "will this be a net positive to the company's bottom line" are all objective, though hard, questions.

> Very related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Nonsense. The company already has many many oughts already. Otherwise words mean nothing, and the "right answer" to an interview question about hashmaps is to strip naked and start humping the trash can.

And on my tennis analogy, it's objective that one way or the other allows a gives player to win more games. So we can call it "better". Even though you can still argue whether you "ought" to try to win.

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#667

Post by Hammershaft »

dataflow wrote: post #514
Hammershaft wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better service to humanity is to excel at your job even if you end up at a socially corrosive org like Meta or Tiktok but donate a decent chunk of your paycheck to effective altruist charities that save lives.

So you mean like buying moral offsets, kind of like how people buy carbon offsets, to achieve morality-neutral jobs? Sounds like a brilliant idea - I'd definitely want to know I'm saving at least as many lives as my company's product is killing. Have you considered recording the morality offsets on a blockchain? Could be a great startup.

The gains from effective charities would massively outstrip the damage of a job at Meta even with a meagre percentage donated.

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#668

Post by Hammershaft »

kriops wrote: post #495
Hammershaft wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better service to humanity is to excel at your job even if you end up at a socially corrosive org like Meta or Tiktok but donate a decent chunk of your paycheck to effective altruist charities that save lives.

A better service to humanity yet is taking that money and spending it on whatever is valuable to yourself, thus providing more people with the opportunity to sustainably work for a living. Capitalism and all that.

Sounds like completely self serving BS. I don't understand what possible definition of 'service to humanity' that could be true under.

EA charities estimate that the cost of malaria prevention that will save a person's life for 1 year is ~$150. So what is a 'better service for humanity'? Buying yourself one night of sushi & wine or donating one year of life to somebody who wouldn't have it otherwise?

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#669

Post by skywal_l »

Conscat wrote: post #586
WalterBright wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be the only person who ever understood every detail of C++, starting with the preprocessor. I can make that claim because I'm the only person who ever implemented all of it. (You cannot really know a language until you've implemented it.) I gave up on that in the 2000's. Modern C++ is simply terrifying in its complexity. (I'm not including the C++ Standard Library, as I didn't implement it.)

Sean Baxter single-handedly implemented all of up to C++23, and some C++26, including a huge number of GNU extensions and possibly an even larger number of his own features.

Yep, too bad Circle never went anywhere...

Re: John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

#670

Post by wilg »

knorker wrote: post #666
wilg wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's subjective because there is no right and wrong. The business goals themselves are subjective. There is no right answer to whether you should build an operating system. Very related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

So you're saying there's no right and wrong decision on whether to make your own OS because Meta has not decided whether it's a public corporation with fiduciary duty or a kindergarten for OS hobbyists to have unproductive wasteful but fun projects in? So that's like saying there's no right or wrong answer on whether to leave your 15th floor apartment a normal morning via the stairs, or by jumping out of the bathroom…

> So you're saying there's no right and wrong decision on whether to make your own OS because Meta has not decided whether it's a public corporation with fiduciary duty or a kindergarten for OS hobbyists to have unproductive wasteful but fun projects in?

No, because it's subjective whether your interpretation of "fiduciary duty" precludes them from developing an OS. I think it does not, for example.

> Unless your goal is to go splat.

Yeah, goals are subjective too.

> Otherwise words mean nothing

Words do mean nothing, they are pointers to ideas. And for you "objective" points to a different idea than it does for most people.

Post reply on HN