Conversation

Replying to
He expressed distaste for a "high level" solution to stereo 3d (basically taking 2 povs in-universe and synthesizing) and talked about how he then did it the right way, using low-level system calls. Interesting to see what lessons he drew from that...
1
For him the lesson was there needed to be more low-level access and faster product management. I don't think that will happen. I suspect the hardware will instead get good enough that the crappy high-level solutions will proliferate. Moore's law driving "worse is better."
1
3
The larger point there is, the fraction of programmers that can solve problems in his idea of the "right way" is probably like <100 in the world right now. "Carmacking" hard problems is just not scalable.
1
8
Which means ways of solving basic metaverse problems that use *mediocre* programmers working with *superior* hardware is actually likely the least-effort path evolution will take.
1
10
It's funny because he recognized that in a different context, arguing against feature-rich expensive hardware, and arguing essentially for cheap, least-common denominator hardware that is minimally reliant on fast wifi (and therefore cloud processing and costs). But...
1
2
... you know what's even more expensive than high-end hardware? Carmack-grade programmers. Even though they are highly leveraged by orgs around them, it still requires amortizing.
1
4
I suspect things like this may unfold in the future of VR/metaverse. People at Carmack's level, but with different tastes/philosophies heading elsewhere to do things off the Carmack roadmap. Makes me wonder... who are the Carmack proteges worth keeping an eye on today? 🤔
3
4
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more