maccard

“On this task” is the really important qualifier. The requirements were already in place, and this was something that wasn’t a business priority for a decade.

Sometimes I wish I had the gall to bolt AI on to something and sell it for _half a billion dollars_ only to sunset it a year later.

I was already using orjson which is pretty much a straight 50% speed up. Calling into native doesn’t really bother me as long as I don’t have to pre compile the whole thing myself.

My experience has been that rust is significantly slower to compile than C++, by the way

Go is pretty close to 0 as well IME.

Funnily enough, last week I was working on parsing some json. I wrote a little script in python, tested it and then ran it over the main dataset. It took so long that I rewrote it in C# before the python script had finished!

No, their decision to focus on a move to azure is the indicator, as the reliability issues started shortly after that, but before their boom in agentic commits

I’ve hired quite a bit over the last 10 years. Curiosity is the absolute number one thing I look for, whether for a fresh grad or a principal/staff+

The difference between a junior and a senior is still very real. With agents, knowing what to ask them to do (or not do) is bordering on more important than it ever was. A curious junior might still go down rabbit holes for things that a person who had done this before. That’s what makes them a junior. Not everything we _can_ do we _should_ do

That sounds like maintenance to me.

I don't think this comment is made in good faith.

> Or is there some other emergent effect you're concerned about that you expect me to be able to infer?

Removing the unneeded snark, yes. A well intended, but poorly implemented law will not have the desired effect. If the law states that F2P games are exempt, for example (as Stop Killing Games has suggested), you'll find a massive swing towards free games with $60/80/100 in-game purchases to access the actual content.

How do you convince yourself of this in a regular election?

I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that this would lead to a rush to the Hollywood model of a studio per project with contractors jumping between them. It work(s/ed) for movies because it was all in Hollywood but there isn’t really an equivalent for game developers.

Anyone using AWS managed services has 3rd party tech that is temporarily licensed. Any dependence on steam, EOS, google, apple, is a third party dependency.

But that’s not the same thing as supporting offline mode, at all.

> but documentation shouldn’t be an issue

Oh boy. I would bet that at any medium sized games company the number of people who can run the full stack of a game from client to backend locally is single digits, and that it is absolutely not documented.

I don’t have a good answer but I agree with you.

The intent of the EU privacy directive was to clarify when websites were storing your data, instead every website has a click through banner that says they use cookies.

The actual implementation is very important.

> I am not opposed to some mandatory disclosures at the time of sale - like "this multiplayer game requires centralized servers", etc.

The problem _here_ is if you use steam, or psn, or epic, or any third party provider you need that. It’s a bit like the California cancer label.

I think if there was a better criteria for “multiplayer”, “single player” , “required”, “online”, and “offline” it would help, but I’m not sure if that’s really feasible either.