I don't see a problem with my programming skills, but with my ability to play the corporate game.
Probably because i have a lot of experience, i kind of know when a manager wants to push a team too much because he wants to play some game of thrones with another manager. I know when they decide to ignore all warnings to get to a deadline, and then when everything explodes they blame someone else. I know when someone has no idea on what he is doing but has too much power. I know when they are demanding world class results on half the time and a tenth of the resources any serious company would dedicate to the effort.
Today you have this "go fast, break things" mentality, which sounds cool and "based", but justifies breaking any rule of software engineering (who has time to write test, amirite?).
And now with IA, is even worse, any manager thinks they can rewrite their stack because they got "hello world" running on localhost.
If you want to be a programmer past the age of forty, you have to accept watching your manager learn things about software development (and management) that you learned years ago.
And that's okay. If it drives you crazy, either let it go, or bite the bullet and apply for the job yourself.
> Today you have this "go fast, break things" mentality
Not in most of the big tech companies, even in the bay area. It's amazing that the bay area companies have managed to grow themselves into giant bureaucratic organizations and they console themselves with bullshit like slow is fast.
That's because "go fast and break things" was a stupid plan for children and criminals. It worked sometimes in the same way that some people who move to LA to become A-list actors succeed, but that doesn't make it a good plan. Slow IS faster. But slow can also be slow; you can go slow because you're doing it right, or you can go slow because you're dragging cinderblocks behind you for no reason. The trick is telling those two things apart.
"Go fast and break things" is a good thing if you're working on stuff nobody needs, or stuff that doesn't make a lot of money.
Breaking a social network that 2,000 people use and makes no revenue is fine as long as you learned something from it that makes it easier to get that 2,001st user or first dollar. Breaking a hospital's IT network could kill someone and should have consequences. Breaking amazon.com costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and should have consequences.
GFBT's usefulness, like most things, changes based on the scale at which you apply it. Calling it stupid is reductive at best.
Yup, or EM pitches the big five year vision rearchitecture because that's what builds their empire, even though a cron job that takes a couple days to write would solve the business need.
And you know that you'll come back in five years and nothing will have changed, except five new services that do half of what the vision required, most systems still depend on what was originally there, the team has tripled in size and most of them are just there to maintain the workarounds of the half-implemented systems, latency, cost, storage, and bug count are all way up, and no new functionality has been built that the original cron job couldn't have handled.
The problem with cloud gaming is that isn't available in all countries and it depends a lot on your ISP, so the experience may vary for different people.
Even if it's free, the experience of using windows 11 as a portable gaming device is awful. Microsoft must create a gaming focused version of windows for this kind of devices. There are rumors of an "xbox OS", but who knows.
I bought an Asus Rog Ally X on a recent trip to NYC (i'm not from the US, and the steam deck isn't sold on regular retailers).
I can't believe how awful the user interface is, they are bascially installing windows 11 in a computer shaped as a portable console, with really small icons and imprecise touch controls, onedrive and microsoft 365 offers, crazy.
If you can install Steam OS on it, all those consolized PCs will end up using native Steam OS, and the next step is the living room (console like desktop pcs).
Microsoft must be really thinking about an Xbox OS, or at least a native and usable gaming interface for windows 11. Valve is trying to remove microsoft as a dependency for their bussines. And i think microsoft sees valve as it's bigger competitor on the gaming space, not Playstation as everyone thinks, that's why they are going with the "everything is an Xbox" ads and rumors about "third party xboxes".
Even the XBOX UI is problematic. I’m stunned that so many games have an additional layer of user onboarding just to get up and running. So many games require that you create an account “typing” your info in an on screen keyboard with an Xbox controller, and verify with email then return to the Xbox and sign in. What should have been a single-sign-on using your gamer tag profile is a clunky fragmented mess.
I'm not even sure it's an 'or' at this point; I've recently gone (multiple times) through the surreal experience of having to install a client and register an account having already bought a game through a storefront for which I had to install a client and register an account and which had already ostensibly installed. In the first case it was for a game I had actually previously played before the publisher decided to slap an account on top of its offering, and I decided I didn't care enough to keep going.
This is a fundamental problem of technology, not just software, not just games games. Too many products unnecessarily tether you back to the manufacturer through an online account. When I buy something, hardware or software, I shouldn't have to check in with the developer forever, just to use it.
This is the buy vs rent discussion all over again. By tying your “purchase” to an account with T&S they have ensured you only have a license to use it on their terms which they can revoke any time they want
I’m a loyal steam customer because Valve has shown themselves to be the most trustworthy and user-focused of any platform, but even then I know I have decades of games on my account that can vanish in an instant.
Yes. And games are built as multi platform so they don’t want to tie themselves tightly to the XBOX ecosystem. But the UIs for that enrollment are almost always horrible. You can tell they are designed for PCs with keyboards and mice. The scaling is all wrong for a TV based interface.
Yep, probably that will be the future of xbox, it will become like steam so you can use and play your xbox library on every device. There may be some Microsoft branded Xboxes, like they have the "surface" PCs, but will be just another device that runs the xbox client.
Well... they want that, but aren't there from my point of view.
From the xbox library (including 3rd party games you got on xbox, old 360 games and so on) only a handful of titles are actually playable on pc, around 10% in my experience (those labeled as "play anywhere", mostly "newish" first party games... 3rd parties want to sell you another copy to play on pc even using the xbox pc client).
And the look and feel of "the platform" is quite different on pc than the console, i think they will try to make the whole library playable and have the same experience (booting up directly to it or running it as a client on any supported device, similar to steam big picture mode)
Currently if I'm filtering right; 553 games are 'free' under Game Pass Ultimate currently, 223 are available on PC. ~42%. That's not great; but not horrible either.
Full Game Pass is 331,461 titles currently, and 240,596 installable on PC; so a bit better ratio.
Yeah, i'm taking as base my own library of xbox games, built over many years. Most games i bought digitally for xbox.
Probably for gamepass they select games that can be used on pc and console, and the store has xbox and pc versions of many titles, but that doesn't mean that if you bought the xbox version you have rights over the pc version.
That is my guess too, they will still release both a console and a portable but it will be open. Phil Spencer has also talked about allowing third party stores on these future Xbox consoles.
Yep, users try to consolidate their gaming library in a particular platform. If you have 100 games on steam, why you would get the newest fifa-718 on xbox instead of steam, where you have all your games?
They plan game pass to get users to the xbox ecosystem, but i'm not sure if it will be enough.
For gaming, RetroPie is a cool solution (it doesn't require raspberrypi).
I have a setup using HP Pro Mini 400 G9 that boots directly into EmulationStation. It's perfect for playing with my kid, covering everything from NES to more recent consoles, and also Steam and Minecraft (via https://github.com/minecraft-linux/appimage-builder/releases) if needed. The offline aspect of non-steam games is a big plus for easier parental management too.
I've got to say I prefer the raw Retroarch interface over the EmulationStation launcher. EmulationStation is pretty but the seams between it and Retroarch were just too big for me.
I highly recommend SteamFork for now! It's very close to upstream SteamOS unlike other derivatives and is easy to install. The experience is just much much better.
The issue is they would need to get rid of xbox live and allow installing apps outside their store. PC gamers will not accept having to pay for online and many play games that are not in the xbox store: all valve games, indie games, mods etc.
I think you’re confusing “political,” which refers to a particular worldview, with what we might call party politics. History is always political because you can’t document every event that occurred during a given time; you’ll inevitably choose certain events over others. That very selection reflects a political stance, whether you realize it or not. Moreover, the subject itself is inherently political—for example, if you’re writing about music history, why focus on European composers rather than on whatever Chinese music existed at the time?
There isn't anything wrong in that, is just the way we work, we live in a particular culture, in a particular social system, in a particular time, and we are political beings.
An true history without politics would be like raw data of the state of every atom trough history, and even that may be political (why you choose to view the world as data?)
You are talking about the potential of political bias.
Actual political history itself can have political biases.
An apolitical history can also have political biases.
The biases aren't what make political history political, but rather its explicit discussion of politics: political events and the people behind them: the when, where, what who.
I am certainly not confused among "study of politics" and "personal politics" and "political bias" and such.
>An apolitical history can also have political biases.
seems contradictory. If you lived on earth, there is no "apolitical lens" to look in. You can only try to grab a truly comprehensive view by finding and studying multiple lenses.
>The biases aren't what make political history political
If you lived in a country, or need a public press to post your findings, or are simply hidden in exposure based on some private company with their own biases, I'd say all those are connected to the political.
"Politics permeates everything" just seems to be like overeducated foolery.
What is the test you are using to detect politics, and what is the evidence that it universally detects politics in everything?
And if it detects politics in everything, how do you know the test works? Counterfactuality is lacking. There has to be some calibrating example of something in which the test finds no politics.
humans are political beings, as aristoteles defined it, and any human action is by itself political
Do you have a direct quote for that? For me, this seems like more than a mere misunderstanding of Aristoteles' work. In Politics book 1, he already explicitly distinguishes between "oikonomike" (the household) and "politike" (the city state) as being two different spheres of engagement. So the claim that any human action is by itself political is just plain false, as actions can either be political or domestic. I struggle to think of any work where he classified mundane acts such as eating as belonging to either category, it seems out of character to me.
Secondly, in Ethics Aristotle stated that he considered politics as a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself: the goal of man is to lead a morally virtuous life, and the goal of the community is to enable and enhance the moral character of its citizens. Therefore, the virtuous man engages in politics to increase the virtue of his entire community, in order to breed more virtuous men. He was also quite clear that public education was required (Politics, book 8) to mold the young into successful statesmen. Both of these seems at odds with your assertion that "humans are political beings" by default.
> Nope, i'm saying that humans are political beings, as aristoteles defined it, and any human action is by itself political.
Aristotle said politics is the study of how communities can achieve “the good life” through governance and organization. He said we are political animals (zoon politikon) who naturally form communities, such as the polis (city-state), to achieve common goals and virtue.
The idea that any human action is political cannot be attributed to Aristotle. It is also a silly and amateur assertion — to breathe is not political, to think is not political, to eat is not political, etc.
Well, that depends on what you eat. Do you eat meat, or are you vegan?
Breathing is a physical action, so there isn’t much to debate there. However, even some physical actions—like using the bathroom—can have political or cultural dimensions. For instance, why do you use a toilet instead of a bidet, as is common in parts of Europe or South America? That choice is shaped by cultural and economic factors that influence your behavior.
> For instance, why do you use a toilet instead of a bidet,
Because my bathroom is too small to house a bidet.
Also, a bidet and toilet don’t serve the same purpose so your example is a false choice.
> Well, that depends on what you eat. Do you eat meat, or are you vegan?
The choice of what to eat can reflect or engage with political and social systems, but it isn’t a political act. It is a personal act. And “to eat” is also not a political act.
is your bathroom too small because you don't make enough money for a larger bathroom? is it because of government regulations regarding habitations? why are you living in that location? what circumstances led you to make that decision? ie, even the size of your bathroom has its own politics in the sense that it contains a history of decision making and power dynamics.
Japan solved the problem under the constraints of no room for a bidet. You can put a Japanese style shower toilet seat on almost any toilet. Mainly the size of the bowl (front-to-back dimension) has to be suitable so that the front loop of the seat sits aligned with the porcelain.
Thank you. I'm well aware of the innovation in bidet and toilet technologies to assist in more hygienic defecation routines and the different environmental impact such as less toilet paper, different energy considerations, plastics, water usage, etc.
> I think you’re confusing “political,” which refers to a particular worldview,
“Political” refers to things related to the governance, policies, or affairs of a country, organization, or group. Usually involves the structure of power, decision-making, and public administration, and debates or actions concerning laws, rights, or societal issues.
Having a worldview is a political act. In fact, even having a sense of right and wrong is political. My point is that humans are inherently political beings: we don’t live in a vacuum, and our values, life choices, and even our language arise from a particular social system. Everything we do is political.
Your perspective seems limited to the more common or everyday meaning of “political,” and I understand that; however, in social studies, “political” usually has a much broader scope.
> In fact, even having a sense of right and wrong is political.
You’re confusing politics with ethics. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies moral principles and values, focusing on what is right, wrong, good, or bad in human behavior.
Ethics focuses on morality, while politics addresses power and governance, though they often overlap in discussions of justice and societal well-being.
> Having a worldview is a political act.
Having a worldview is not inherently a political act, but it can become political when that worldview influences or interacts with societal structures, policies, or governance. A worldview shapes how you see justice, power, and societal organization, which may align with or challenge political systems or ideologies.
Just the fact that you dress up is a political act, you are accepting and reproducing that being naked is wrong, or at least you do it because you can't do it otherwise due to social punishment. Or you go naked, and that's also a political stance. If you live in a society, everything you do is political.
And that's ok, there isn't anything wrong with that.
>Having a worldview is not inherently a political act
yes it is, because that world view doesn't come up to your head in the vaccum, is result of all social interactions you had in your life and every thing you saw etc, and from that you are creating a political posture. You may not take any action and be completely silent about it the rest of your life (doubtful) but even not talking about it is a political act.
Are you in the USA? This is just something they promulgate in the educational system, along with the idea that there is always room for another opinion that is just as valid, even after domain experts have reached consensus using rational evidence.
Yes, the the doctrine that no human thought or action is politics-free, is itself politically motivated, and the worldview which subscribes to it is political. It's a doctrine which suits the narratives of all sorts of political activists. Slogans like "if you're not with us you're against us" belong to this doctrine. Every thought you have is political, and so if you're thinking something that doesn't align with our politics, it must be different politics. Different politics is bad and against us.
The doctrine is just something someone made up. It is not justified by rational evidence of any kind.
You are mixing up things: I criticized a worldview and a doctrine, but what is wrong with the doctrine isn't that it claims "every worldview is political", but that "all human thought and action is political".
If it were the former, it would be uncontroversial. I don't disagree with the claim that worldviews are political. The concept of a world view is a set of perspectives and opinions which encompass the human sphere of existence, which has a big political content. (The ideas contained in a worldview are not all political; a worldview needs facts, too, like salt being sodium and chloride, which isn't something voted on in a parliament.)
So, yes, while my worldview necessarily encompasses political topics, I also have thoughts that are rational and unrelated to politics. Or possibly even to a worldview.
Not OP but I think you’re confusing “politics” with “bias”.
History is biased, I don’t think anyone would debate that, but bias isn’t necessarily political. There’s lots of reasons for people to think some item or story is worth preserving, and most of them aren’t about politics.
The “everything is political” concept has been a very successful propaganda campaign, particularly in the US.
>The “everything is political” concept has been a very successful propaganda campaign, particularly in the US.
Everyone thinking politics is only about 2 parties and some controversial thinkg to even utter is the successful propaganda.
>the academic study of government and the state.
That's all it is. unless you are truly independent and in the wild, it's hard to say anyone isn't influenced by politics. Hence, biases. Bias in this lens is a byproduct of your environment, managed by politics.
> Everyone thinking politics is only about 2 parties and some controversial thinkg to even utter is the successful propaganda.
You keep making a point that no one is bringing up. Not only I don’t believe that, as a non-US citizen living in Europe I don’t even care about your two parties.
But there’s quite a stretch between “humans are biased” and “what you think about how society should work influences absolutely everything you do”.
As a silly example, I have quite a collection of music. I keep physical copies of the ones I think are more important to me. If a future archeologist were to find them, they’d get a biased picture of what people listen.
But my taste in music has nothing to do with my beliefs about politics. There’s artists there with every type of conviction, from different eras, from different countries,..
“Everything is political” is a great slogan for activists to get people to do what you want them to do, but like all slogans it’s not actually true.
Bias is often just a product of human cognition: i.e. one of the cognitive biases. Your environment is political, so your cognitive biases are tinged with politics.
That's just stretching the meaning of the word "political" so broad that it ceases to have meaning at all. For an act to be political, it needs to engage with the environment with an intention to change or entrench it. If you include in your definition actions that are the result of a certain political climate, you have simply nullified the word.
It's also just as simple as experiences. even if we could remove all bias, we don't know what we don't know. aspects like language barriers don't help either in terms of properly sharing such histories either.
If someone documents a natural disaster like a Volcano engulfing an entire city, that's not political in any way, that's just recording facts that any historian regardless of their political views would record.
The choice of which cities they document and what they cite is definitely political. For example, what city do you think of with that description? It's probably Pompeii and not Herculaneum, let alone Cuicuilco, Vestmannaeyjar, or NA 860.
So, what was the political motivation of Pliny the Elder to document the Vesuvian eruption that destroyed Pompeii, as opposed to e.g. the numerous eruptions of Krakatoa?
With that argument, fascist regimes would be pretty close to the truth, since they were criticized by both liberal democracies and communist countries.
Also, you’re assuming there are always only two positions on a given topic. I know it might look that way on Twitter—most people today seem weaponized to pick one side or the other—but real social studies are far more nuanced than that.
The fact that everyone criticizes you only means that whatever you say doesn’t align with their narrative, not that you’re close to the truth.
I find it interesting that we're in a post truth society now, and it may not mean what I think it means. While considering your last paragraph I realized that post truth doesn't necessarily mean absence of fact.
It's simply people trying to write history while living it instead of waiting for it to actually be history or relying on experts to maintain an historical account. Facts don't matter. What gets remembered is all that matters, really.
This might seem like a strange example, but there was a very popular soccer coach in the 1980s. He led the Argentina national team to victory in the 1986 World Cup. His name was Carlos Bilardo, and he was an incredibly successful, world-class coach.
Later in life, when someone showed him the World Cup trophy, he started crying. He said, "I gave everything for that trophy—my family, my personal life. I forgot to live."
Sometimes, what appears to be success from the outside hides a deep obsession and significant gaps in personal care and mental health.
It’s okay not to be number one sometimes, there is a huge price to pay that not everyone sees, and nobody shows.
I think the issue is that consoles are now just storefronts for a digital platform. Xbox lost the PS4 generation, where most people stopped buying physical games and started purchasing digital games.
If you have your entire collection of games on PS4 (or Steam, or Xbox), moving to a different ecosystem is a pain. Even if the console itself is cheap and they give away games, once you have everything in one place, there is little incentive to move away from your console of choice on the next generation. You have to differentiate a lot of your competition, (as nintendo does) but an xbox is basically the same as a ps5, just with 20 or so different games (exclusives).
That wasn't the case in the past. With physical games, I usually had more than one console, and depending on the price, performance, or other factors, I would choose one platform or another.
That's why I think they want to push PC and even TV gaming. Getting people into their ecosystem is the tricky part.
The console as hardware is actually great, probably better than the PS5, and really cheap for such a powerful computer.
Probably because i have a lot of experience, i kind of know when a manager wants to push a team too much because he wants to play some game of thrones with another manager. I know when they decide to ignore all warnings to get to a deadline, and then when everything explodes they blame someone else. I know when someone has no idea on what he is doing but has too much power. I know when they are demanding world class results on half the time and a tenth of the resources any serious company would dedicate to the effort.
Today you have this "go fast, break things" mentality, which sounds cool and "based", but justifies breaking any rule of software engineering (who has time to write test, amirite?).
And now with IA, is even worse, any manager thinks they can rewrite their stack because they got "hello world" running on localhost.
Maybe i'm getting old...
reply