I think it's because most of us don't do CS once we graduate. We build APIs and websites which don't involve CS at all. It barely involves engineering. lol.
No one uses binary trees or some manual form of serialization.
They use "superlib.search(arr)" or (seriliazer.parse(thingy)" and that's about it. No one cares about what it does. They just know it does it faster than something they could write. The only places that care about it are at the utmost peak of scale.
Heck, I run an API that gets tens of millions of reqs a day and I'm an idiot that couldn't computer science their way of of a paper bag.
I'm not some Google/Microsoft/whatever engineer who's been working on highly scalable, highly available systems. I've mostly worked in consulting on small projects. I have never not had problems with the defaults on any of those sorts of libraries. I've almost always had to roll my own graph manipulation and heavily customize any serialization system I've used. And when I do so, because I've gotten good at doing it (in particular, I don't think of the graph stuff as being hard at all), it makes tons of other stuff inside around the project a lot easier.
I feel like people bend themselves out of shape trying to avoid these so-called "complex" or "esoteric" "only theoretical Computer Science" topics. You don't need a general purpose tree or graph manipulation library. Trying to make one ends up creating something far more complex than necessary and all you succeed in doing is making the calling code maybe two lines shorter but also not easily portable between projects, and also at a huge maintenance cost. It would be like trying to make your own, bespoke "Collection handling class" because you think trying to keep track of arrays and lists and dictionaries and sets and queues and stacks is too "complex, esoteric." No, you end up creating something complex and esoteric in the attempt to try to handle the erroneously identified "complexity."
In general, I don't think you can argue definitively on the uselessness of a piece of knowledge from a standpoint of ignorance of that knowledge.
The hype train the caught me was VR. I'm reminded of the Microsoft Hololens. It was an incredible feat of engineering. At the same time, it was--at times, literally--a painful experience.
There was a vision of the Hololens being a general purpose compute device that enabled something more like the power of a desktop without being tethered to a sitting position at a desk. You could see it if you squinted hard (incidentally, the device caused a lot of eye strain). But even at the height of the VR hype cycle, I didn't know anyone pushing the Hololens on anyone. Nobody was telling the world they were going to be using Hololenses v1 or v2 as their only computer "or get left behind."
If it's open source, where is the source? I couldn't find a link to a repository. There is a link to GitHub on the Contact Us page, but it's just a link to github.com.
Those sort of ideas are unlikely to yield major benefit, though.
This is basically replicating the plight of the solo open source dev, writ large. Individual programmers have long built the thing they've cared about on their own time (essentially "for free" because, despite kindergarten economics theory, a programmer cannot usually monetize a marginal hour). And it usually goes that the project never gets adopted anywhere. It might acrue more features and total man-hour effort than most of what FAANG does in open source to drown out the solo devs. But the market will decide that "no organizational buy-in" is a signal the project doesn't matter. Other developers will decide, "if he could do it, so could I" and also not adopt.
Same exact thing is happening and will continue to happen with all these generated "but we wouldn't have done it otherwise" projects. It's just very, very unlikely to go anywhere.
That which took very little effort to create will receive very little effort to promote.
I don't think this is the right framing, because I think it confuses the means and the ends.
Its like making a jig in woodworking. The measure of the jig's success is not whether it gets re-used or widespread adoption, its whether it made it easier to achieve some actual objective. Because the jig is a means to some other end.
Lots of these "we wouldn't have done it otherwise" applications are means, not ends.
That is true, but that suggests that the value of software is reverting to the value of a jig. Software that gets deployed to millions of people gets a large valuation because it provides small convenience times a million. In the era of bespoke software, you’re basically 100x-ing the production of a millionth of the value of commercial software. That’s why it isn’t all that impactful in the end and I think it’s worth highlighting.
Back around 2015, I did an experiment where I spent most of my working day in VR (mostly spent iterating on some interaction space designs in TiltBrush). I had many of those feelings directly after. It actually felt uncomfortable to be around people. It felt like everyone was too close and were about to clip though me at any second.
I spent about an hour in a VR entertainment space, where you donned a headset and played a game designed for a large play-space.
It was incredibly fun, but afterwards driving my car home I felt like the driving experience wasn't "real", and I had to put more conscious effort into my driving than usual to remain a safe driver. It took a few hours to wear away.
(This was a very distinct experience from what I have felt when binging a VR game like Half-Life: Alyx at home, where I get urges to teleport-move around my house and my hand-perception is off).
Fascinating. I wonder what it would look like if you intentionally tried to create a VR experience optimized for creating this disruption. Does every game or experience have the same effect? If not what causes a greater or lesser impact on your senses?
> I actually had to backpedal on my gaming PC from Kubuntu recently, I'm sad to say. The support for the RTX 5080 is just too rough.
What? That has nothing to do with KDE. And Ubuntu is one of the happy paths for driver support. The problem is squarely on either NVidia or overly pretentious commitment to FOSS and only FOSS.
It's been fairly well known for years that nvidia only supports linux gaming as an afterthought. In fact, if you'd read the whole post you'd have seen where they said:
"I'll probably try again in a few months, and hope the GPU support is better. But that's also explicitly riding on nvidia to do."
It's really not that bad. KDE is perfectly usable by default. More so than the only options you get on macOS or Windows. And, if you are so inclined, you can spend that extra effort to make it sing just to you. So, the hyperbole here is really not warranted.
Isn't english known for not having an official set of gramatical rules? There are conventions and rules from universities i.e Cambridge vs Oxford comma. But there is no single body that is commonly accepted by all english-speaking countries to be codifying the official rules of the language.
I am personally a fan of space padded em-dash. Visually, semantically, it makes sense on all modern planes. There's an argument for line-break parsing.
Of course I recommend do-not-adopt, think Roman-cart-wheel-axle-width reasons.
I've thought about the specific example of distorted menu photos before as well and to me it also signals intelligence level in the proprietor. I can't imagine myself in that position, looking at that and saying, "yup, that's good." And I also have a hard time imagining not understanding why it looks bad, what one could have done to not make it bad. It feels like a distinct decision to be lazy.
And like you said, if they are that careless and unadept at one thing, how are they going to work the intricacies of an espresso machine and food safety standards? Not that an espresso machine is that hard to operate, but surely it's more difficult than maintaining the aspect ratio of a photo. You don't even need to know the term "aspect ratio" to get it right.
But I also have to admit that my expectations seem to be very off on this specific issue. My wife is quite intelligent (actual, literal genius) and even quite artsy, and yet I had to teach her how to not resize photos incorrectly, both for aspect ratio and quality by resizing too large. It's seems like such an easy thing to see and figure out to me. This must be how my 10 year old sees my chess play.
If you want to pull good shots you need to be adjusting grind (etc) every day and throughout the day. So it's a case where you have to check and adjust output continuously.
So for me that's especially a case where like, do you pay attention to detail and take time to fix obvious mistakes is probably the number one requirement.
reply