lackbeard

This was a super-interesting read, but I'm disappointed there isn't a description of what, exactly, was wrong about what he did, and what one should do instead. The only thing that comes to mind is the obvious one: you don't want more than the FDIC limit in a single bank account.

This is a very interesting, very well written post. The part that stands out the most is:

> if you needed venture capital to produce a viable small-scale business, you didn't really have a viable small-scale business to begin with. Triplebyte's break-even status was an illusion, predicated on funding that would probably never have existed if that scale were the founders' only ambition.

I wonder if there's a way to build a viable business out of a product like FastTrack that does not depend on venture capital to get going?

Isn't ASML a Dutch company? I can't seem to find any evidence they've ever been sold.

Good comment, and, basically, I fully agree, except, I really dislike your attempt to appropriate the words "programming" and "coding" here. Like, can you just explain what you mean without trying to redefine terms that have broadly accepted definitions distinct from how you're trying to use them here?

(Sorry, this probably sounds more critical than I'm intending...)

I'm not sure what is meant by "data-oriented programming" (I know what "data-driven" means...) but, yes, "Data-Oriented Design" has a distinct (if somewhat nebulous) meaning which comes from game programmer culture. (And my guess is the difference between it and data-oriented programming is not slight.) Data-Oriented Design is, basically, the name given to the bag of techniques listed on the submitted webpage. I don't know if the term was coined by Mike Acton, but it was popularized by the talk he gave that is linked to on the submitted webpage. (It's an inspiring talk! You should watch it, if you have not, yet.)

As far as I can tell, Data-Oriented Design is a reaction to trauma experienced by game programmers trying to undo damage inflicted by the... inapt... application of OO techniques in game codebases by their (probably well-meaning, but ignorant) peers. (Hence the contrast in the names: OBJECT-Oriented Design -> DATA-Oriented Design.)

The keystone idea seems to be, instead of organizing your program's data as objects in an inheritance hierarchy, figure out which data will be accessed together in tight loops, and pack that data together in arrays. (I.e., prefer structs of arrays to arrays of objects.)

P.S., There's an interaction during the Q&A section of that presentation by Mike Acton which I love: one questioner asks, somewhat incredulously, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "If I were to follow the principles you have laid out in this talk, then, if I ever needed to alter the layout of my data--after having invested (perhaps significant) time already writing my program--I would subsequently be required to rewrite all the code which accesses that data." and Mike Action answers, basically, with a stone-cold "Yes."

I agree that "tiers vs. continuum" has no bearing on the question of whether or not Magic: The Gathering is pay-to-win. I was merely pointing out that what tedunangst was describing was a continuum, not tiers.

Obviously, I'm not articulating my perspective very persuasively. Here's some additional flavor that might help (probably won't:)

1. In Magic: The Gathering, the most expensive deck is not always (or even ever, really) the best.

2. Is Golf pay-to-win? I can spend more on a set of clubs that have bigger sweet spots & will give me more distance with the same swing than my opponent's set.

3. The term "pay-to-win" comes from free-to-play MMOs.

I think most people that claim MTG is pay-to-win are just frustrated by how expensive it is. I agree. Don't play it!

I would say, in that sense, there aren't really tiers; it's a continuum, and you can attempt to compete at whatever price point you're willing.

No, it's just a really expensive game with a subscription model. What's the price to pay to get four copies of each card in every standard set? That's your quarterly subscription fee.

It would be pay-to-win if you could do stuff like, pay a fee to take a second card at once during a draft, or tutor a card from your collection during a game, etc...

The time-honored (or "lindy") solutions here are joining a gym and going to church.

Accelerometers and IR sensors were advanced tech in 2006?

The Wii is actually a perfect example of that philosophy. It was built using outdated, underpowered tech, but in spite of that, was a huge success because they did something unusual and innovative with it.

Wasn't SVB an S&P 500 company?

I guess that's what you normally do when you're overweighted that asset class and you must cover withdrawals!

It's well known that long-dated treasuries are highly volatile. I think the lesson we've all learned here is that they didn't have a viable business. It seems like they were offering a product that was not profitable given their competition and reasonable risk management.

I wonder why that didn't happen in this case? Perhaps fear that would just trigger a run on the acquiring bank?