Negitivefrags

I think the reason is much more simple.

It's very hard to improve something that you don't understand yourself. All the tiny decisions you make as you create a product are informed by the experience you have.

So it's seems obvious to me that a product created by software engineers would be better at software engineering. A programmer knows what a programmer needs.

To improve another industry successfully, you would really need people from that industry to be involved in a deep level in the design of the product.

And if you thought that was ridiculous, consider that the "best" implementation is the SQL database it wrote in PHP.

You can’t just yolo an MMO with unreal engines server. Not unless you want your MMO to have a max of about 60 players in the world.

You need to write you own version of all that stuff and effectively just use UE as the graphics engine.

People may be different, but that doesn’t mean we should accept it all the time.

I hate exercise. Like I really really really hate it.

Should I just accept this and live a life without it?

I don’t think it’s such a stretch to say that socialisation is similar.

You might have delivered 10x more code, but did you deliver 10x more value?

Or put another way, are you making 10x more money?

It's easy to spend excess productivity effectively wasting time. Most companies did it before AI, and will continue doing it after.

It's easy to believe you are not wasting time because you have more bugs fixed or more features delivered, but if it doesn't move the bottom line, what is the point?

I suspect that the conditions the textile workers lived in when western countries were creating textiles is not so different in absolute terms from the condition that they live in now.

It's just that the western world moved on.

Almost all economies that have developed have started with textiles. This is the starting point on the ladder. Eventually, we will run out of poor countries that haven't had a textile industry yet, and at that point, either it will be entirely automated, or we will no longer have cheap textiles!

But I'm betting on the automation.

I'm really bothered by the mindset of the people against this. People act like induced demand is evil.

In reality, if more people were able to go wherever they wanted to go, that's actually a good thing regardless of if the existing people didn't get to go somewhere faster.

If you look at the actual source linked in the article it contridicts you.

"Other" in that document means custom game engines.

This is not what the “exception that proves the rule” means.

If a sign says “No parking on saturdays”, that is an exception that can be used to infer the rule “parking here is okay the rest of the time”.

This has been the case for software since the very beginning. And people have been complaining about it since the beginning. See the Free Software Foundation.

I am not a fan of this take.

It's possible to not make an engine, or use a 3rd party engine. You just make a game. Use SDL or something. It's honestly easier and more fun. Definately don't use Rust.

It doesn't take two years.

The more you focus on making gameplay, and not making an engine the better. Which sounds like similar advice to "use an existing engine", but it's not, because using existing engines is also a pretty sad time. You can waste just as much time farting around in Unreal as you do making your own engine.

At the end of the day, most people are just not serious about making a game. Using someone elses engine, building from scratch, both will work if you are actually making a game and not just wasting time.

When the author said “bringing work home” they didn’t mean literally working at home.

They meant that they spend a huge amount of time feeling stressed about work situations at home.

I get the sentiment, but it's possible to go too far with the "It's always the process's fault" direction.

It's trendy in buisness culture right now to erase the individual. Zero accountability can also mean zero growth. I don't think it's honestly the most enjoyable situation to be in.

> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag.

If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient.

This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself.