Where are the builders?(near.blog)
near.blog
Where are the builders?
https://near.blog/where-are-the-builders/
91 comments
I’m in the same position as you, and I agree wholeheartedly. The one thing I’ll say is that I think 20 years is optimistic.
I’ve been involved in a few huge, greenfield projects that were mostly building new things from the ground up. There was an air of “true” building around. But it was astonishing how quickly that faded away. It took less than a year after our first launch for a lot of people to start leaving the team, citing reasons like their job was now just drudgery maintenance work or small feature adjustments, which is definitely less attractive and inspiring.
And that is reinforced by career paths as well. See: the trope about Google promotions based on new launches, not bugs fixed. And people definitely idolize “the engineer that built Linux” more than “the engineer that has patched 1000 linux bugs”.
I’ve been involved in a few huge, greenfield projects that were mostly building new things from the ground up. There was an air of “true” building around. But it was astonishing how quickly that faded away. It took less than a year after our first launch for a lot of people to start leaving the team, citing reasons like their job was now just drudgery maintenance work or small feature adjustments, which is definitely less attractive and inspiring.
And that is reinforced by career paths as well. See: the trope about Google promotions based on new launches, not bugs fixed. And people definitely idolize “the engineer that built Linux” more than “the engineer that has patched 1000 linux bugs”.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head on why I would rather “waste” time in Factorio than program at my enterprise SWE job. Because it’s closer to being a historian than a builder.
We just need to make a market for "I'll pay you $500 to upgrade this save game file's factory from yellow to red belt", and have buyers and sellers, and then we can have it actually be a job. Because there's some parts of factorio I enjoy, and some that I don't, but that's the addictiveness of it.
This exists for several games. Probably not Factorio specifically, but games like WoW or Everquest have loot & XP farms where people just grind for hours to make a super powerful character for you and then sell it.
I think the Factorio equivalent would be more like licensing chip designs. It doesn’t have the same false scarcity as other games.
I've noticed some weird things. It seems that a few decades ago technological progress was about building the future we saw in Sci-Fi. Trying to build the things we dreamed and saw. But now it seems we just try to make hardware faster and smaller or software more... subscription-y. Even all the AI stuff isn't building these Star Trek, Star Wars, whatever like futures, unless we're talking about the dystopian near Sci-Fis of Black Mirror. I've also noticed that people are far more pessimistic about the future and at least in my social circles, I know far fewer people that read books or watch movies anymore. There's fewer people I know engaging in these world building activities, even in technological circles. There are definitely plenty, but these are never the people leading teams or even seem to be allowed to try many of their ideas. I think the thing is Silicon Valley stopped dreaming of the future world, and only about their future pockets. (an obvious over generalization, but dramatic for my point)
Technological progress is still about building the future we saw in Sci-Fi, it's just that sci-fi has become increasingly dystopian. Parts of Black Mirror, The Diamond Age, Her, Children of Men, Upload, Don't Look Up, The Day After Tomorrow, etc have all made it into reality.
Note that sci-fi goes through cycles. The optimistic Star Trek or Jetsons future was a product of the 1950s and 1960s, when people were generally pretty optimistic. 30s/40s sci-fi is Brave New World and 1984, which is a decidedly different vibe (and also came true in many ways).
Note that sci-fi goes through cycles. The optimistic Star Trek or Jetsons future was a product of the 1950s and 1960s, when people were generally pretty optimistic. 30s/40s sci-fi is Brave New World and 1984, which is a decidedly different vibe (and also came true in many ways).
I think you're oversimplifying and dismissing the issue.
> have all made it into reality.
I don't like this. It sounds like you're saying it is we who are intentionally creating this dystopian world. Or that we build this because this is what Hollywood shows us. One sounds like we're all evil (maybe we are), and the other sounds like a conspiracy.
> Note that sci-fi goes through cycles.
Saying it goes in cycles dismisses the aspect that we are the ones in control. And let's be honest, we're the nerds, it doesn't matter what mainstream sci-fi is in vogue. It matters what we watch and what we're trying to create.
All things "go through cycles" and that's not a meaningful thing to note. It is dismissive of the causal factors and as if we are subject to fate. The future and world is in our hands. We are the creators and masters of our future, our society, our culture. It is not father time nor are our thoughts and dreams controlled by others. You can argue that our capacity to make those dreams a reality are, but not the dreams themselves.
I want to add more context to my previous statement. Antoine de Saint Exupéry once said
> have all made it into reality.
I don't like this. It sounds like you're saying it is we who are intentionally creating this dystopian world. Or that we build this because this is what Hollywood shows us. One sounds like we're all evil (maybe we are), and the other sounds like a conspiracy.
> Note that sci-fi goes through cycles.
Saying it goes in cycles dismisses the aspect that we are the ones in control. And let's be honest, we're the nerds, it doesn't matter what mainstream sci-fi is in vogue. It matters what we watch and what we're trying to create.
All things "go through cycles" and that's not a meaningful thing to note. It is dismissive of the causal factors and as if we are subject to fate. The future and world is in our hands. We are the creators and masters of our future, our society, our culture. It is not father time nor are our thoughts and dreams controlled by others. You can argue that our capacity to make those dreams a reality are, but not the dreams themselves.
I want to add more context to my previous statement. Antoine de Saint Exupéry once said
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.
We've also lost the willingness to push back on stupid/evil ideas. I thought software engineers had options! We're in demand! We can pick and choose and find a company doing good! At least that's what HN tells me. Yet, when Bossman tells us "Go build the Torment Nexus" we say "Well, I guess I have no choice! Bossman told me to do it, and he's the one paying me!" And we go off and build the Torment Nexus (or Social Media) and the world is worse off for it.
Yeah this is odd to me too.
Not I think we should be clear that it doesn't matter if we're in demand or not[0]. You always have a choice to not build the Torment Nexus. Sometimes it's harder than not. You might not know what you're building (you can always turn back when/if you find out). Some things aren't worth the money and it's important to always remember there are other ways to make money. You may be a cog in a machine, but all cogs serve a vital role, even when there is redundancy. People forget that without our labor (whoever "we" are and what "labor" we do), the Tournament Nexus can't be built.
But the trouble with the Tournament Nexus is that sometimes it's built without anyone actually intending to build it. It's more important that we remember this and stay vigilant. That we don't always dismiss others who say it's being built. No one likes to hear that because they think it means someone is claiming they're doing it purposefully. But did we also forget that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions? And that's what needs to be remembered, that evil is often built by people trying to do good.
[0] clearly we are though since it's our labor that created the wealth of the wealthiest people and businesses.
Not I think we should be clear that it doesn't matter if we're in demand or not[0]. You always have a choice to not build the Torment Nexus. Sometimes it's harder than not. You might not know what you're building (you can always turn back when/if you find out). Some things aren't worth the money and it's important to always remember there are other ways to make money. You may be a cog in a machine, but all cogs serve a vital role, even when there is redundancy. People forget that without our labor (whoever "we" are and what "labor" we do), the Tournament Nexus can't be built.
But the trouble with the Tournament Nexus is that sometimes it's built without anyone actually intending to build it. It's more important that we remember this and stay vigilant. That we don't always dismiss others who say it's being built. No one likes to hear that because they think it means someone is claiming they're doing it purposefully. But did we also forget that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions? And that's what needs to be remembered, that evil is often built by people trying to do good.
[0] clearly we are though since it's our labor that created the wealth of the wealthiest people and businesses.
This argument is so tired. You bring up "Her", do you not realize in star trek Data had romantic interests? The tech in those books is not what makes them dystopian and the reason those books have dystopian themes is because stories require conflict to be interesting. The tech is just a cool veneer.
> the reason those books have dystopian themes is because stories require conflict to be interesting. The tech is just a cool veneer.
No, that's just an excuse for lazy writing. And if our stories are predominantly this basic, it's hard to create a future that's better.
No, that's just an excuse for lazy writing. And if our stories are predominantly this basic, it's hard to create a future that's better.
> our stories are predominantly this basic
they are unfortunately
they are unfortunately
Ok, so why don't you build things for fun that affect the real world outside of your office job?
And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question, you can do anything, even woodworking, it just has to affect the real world and not a video game.
And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question, you can do anything, even woodworking, it just has to affect the real world and not a video game.
The not-cliche response coming from about 8 years of experience as an entrepreneur: most people don't want you to affect the real world, or at least their real world. Most folks want to tightly control their environment, and today's world of cheap manufactured goods is already oversaturated with physical products.
I think this is the real reason why people aren't building, and on a societal and not just individual level. Other people don't want them to. Just look at the response whenever someone tries building new housing or mass transit. It's endless environmental reviews, neighborhood reviews, lawsuits, public hearings, ballot initiatives, etc. The market for mobile apps dried up not because there aren't enough of them (there are millions) or that they're crap (90% are, but 90% of everything is crap), but because most people already have the apps they need to manage their daily life.
When it comes to my real world, I do plenty of stuff. I garden, largely unsuccessfully, but now that's ballooned into construction projects to keep the dear away. I had the kids helping me redo my home's gutters and putting new crown moulding on, as well as assembling furniture and caulking the driveway. I'm in the process of organizing my kids' toys. But these also have diminishing returns: once the gutters are done I hopefully won't need to re-do them for another 10-20 years, the driveway caulking should last a few years at least. I don't feel any particular need to pick up a hobby like woodworking just for the sake of doing it; that's just as unproductive as computer gaming, but generally less fun.
I think this is the real reason why people aren't building, and on a societal and not just individual level. Other people don't want them to. Just look at the response whenever someone tries building new housing or mass transit. It's endless environmental reviews, neighborhood reviews, lawsuits, public hearings, ballot initiatives, etc. The market for mobile apps dried up not because there aren't enough of them (there are millions) or that they're crap (90% are, but 90% of everything is crap), but because most people already have the apps they need to manage their daily life.
When it comes to my real world, I do plenty of stuff. I garden, largely unsuccessfully, but now that's ballooned into construction projects to keep the dear away. I had the kids helping me redo my home's gutters and putting new crown moulding on, as well as assembling furniture and caulking the driveway. I'm in the process of organizing my kids' toys. But these also have diminishing returns: once the gutters are done I hopefully won't need to re-do them for another 10-20 years, the driveway caulking should last a few years at least. I don't feel any particular need to pick up a hobby like woodworking just for the sake of doing it; that's just as unproductive as computer gaming, but generally less fun.
> Ok, so why don't you build things for fun that affect the real world outside of your office job?
> And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question
For the first point: I do, but this does not change what you consider a cliché responses that
1. I am often very tired from my job
2. I can only invest little time (at night and at weekends), which is far too little to affect the world around me. I nevertheless invest these precious little ressources, but the reasons lie in my personal convictions.
> And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question
For the first point: I do, but this does not change what you consider a cliché responses that
1. I am often very tired from my job
2. I can only invest little time (at night and at weekends), which is far too little to affect the world around me. I nevertheless invest these precious little ressources, but the reasons lie in my personal convictions.
What a terrible argument. We're people, not machines. We cannot spend all our time working. People have passions, families, and lives to live. I'd even argue that ignoring those things makes it harder for people to get the ideas to build the things that actually matter.
The answer to "why were builders able to create so much economic value two decades ago?" is "its a much more mature industry now: most of the empty space is filled."
Here are several real-life examples.
3 decades ago, you could've gotten rich by buying 'simple noun' domain names: beer, pinotgrigio, moving on down the list, stuff like that. You could literally just buy ad space on Google for next to nothing, pump money in, get more money out. You could decide to be the Internet expert on 'potato guns' and build an entire business off that, by writing blog posts alone. You could film yourself all day and become a rich YouTuber, just by showing up and recording videos daily.
Try doing that now! You can't live off the profit of any of these methods as written. So naturally the builders, who are upstream of that, can't do it either.
Here are several real-life examples.
3 decades ago, you could've gotten rich by buying 'simple noun' domain names: beer, pinotgrigio, moving on down the list, stuff like that. You could literally just buy ad space on Google for next to nothing, pump money in, get more money out. You could decide to be the Internet expert on 'potato guns' and build an entire business off that, by writing blog posts alone. You could film yourself all day and become a rich YouTuber, just by showing up and recording videos daily.
Try doing that now! You can't live off the profit of any of these methods as written. So naturally the builders, who are upstream of that, can't do it either.
This is a common misconception. With hindsight we can say "It was so easy to succeed back then!"
Why didn't you do those things? Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend? It's extremely difficult to know which trend will actually stick around for the long term.
TikTok could be a current example since they are pushing the shop so hard.
Why didn't you do those things? Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend? It's extremely difficult to know which trend will actually stick around for the long term.
TikTok could be a current example since they are pushing the shop so hard.
Answers for me:
> Why didn't you do those things?
Because at that time I was a child, and thus simply wasn't able to, even though I saw the potential.
> Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend?
I actually attempt to, but since I have an exhausting job, I can only invest very little time at night and weekends on this topic. And no, my (also work) environment is not very receptive to my ideas ... :-(
So, what I do is rather attempting to catch some long-term future trends.
But I am very sure that I am onto some something(s) since when I presented some of my ideas to my former PhD advisor a few months ago, he immediately made slight attempts to (re)hire me. Well, a few years ago, I would likely have taken such an offer, but now I am not anymore willing to accept the bad job security and prospects in academia (which were central reasons why I left academia).
> Why didn't you do those things?
Because at that time I was a child, and thus simply wasn't able to, even though I saw the potential.
> Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend?
I actually attempt to, but since I have an exhausting job, I can only invest very little time at night and weekends on this topic. And no, my (also work) environment is not very receptive to my ideas ... :-(
So, what I do is rather attempting to catch some long-term future trends.
But I am very sure that I am onto some something(s) since when I presented some of my ideas to my former PhD advisor a few months ago, he immediately made slight attempts to (re)hire me. Well, a few years ago, I would likely have taken such an offer, but now I am not anymore willing to accept the bad job security and prospects in academia (which were central reasons why I left academia).
So it sounds like you agree there is not a lack of new trends :)
There are plenty of new ideas and trends. However most people do not pursue them because we're too young, need job stability, etc
There are plenty of new ideas and trends. However most people do not pursue them because we're too young, need job stability, etc
Given the AI gold rush, in 5 years, we're going to look back at the winners of this time, and say the same thing.
You could just get your code into lama.cpp, get a job at the winning AI startup, get stocks, get vested, become rich. So why haven't you? Hindsight is easy.
You could just get your code into lama.cpp, get a job at the winning AI startup, get stocks, get vested, become rich. So why haven't you? Hindsight is easy.
Yea, I remember graduating undergrad in 1998 as a Comp Eng major. Nobody knew who was going to make it big and who was going to be out of business in 2 years. It was a total gamble. Nobody has a crystal ball. Do you join MCI Worldcom or AT&T? One of them is still a world leader and one of them is defunct. How were we to know? Do you join Amazon or Webvan? I chose to go into 3D graphics... Should I have joined NVIDIA, ATI, or Matrox? One of them is now basically nonexistent, one of them got bought and had its ups and downs, and one of them is now the third largest company in the world. In hindsight it's now obvious but it wasn't at the time.
Literally go build a couple of houses and become a millionaire, building physical things is in high demand, low supply.
As someone who's relatives did this full time: n'ah.
You will live a comfortable life (except for all the hard work and heavy lifting, of course) but you'll never save up a million. Not unless you're in the real estate speculation side of the equation and you get lucky.
The biggest benefit house building skill gives you is that you don't have to pay someone else to fix your own house.
You will live a comfortable life (except for all the hard work and heavy lifting, of course) but you'll never save up a million. Not unless you're in the real estate speculation side of the equation and you get lucky.
The biggest benefit house building skill gives you is that you don't have to pay someone else to fix your own house.
Build them where? Underlying the housing crisis is a land allocation crisis (entirely government manufactured).
They should be working on adtech, like good little drones.
The stuff that really needs to be worked on doesn't pay that well and isn't appreciated. Fast factory automation. Security for the power grid and Internet backbone. Non-AI systems to monitor AI systems to keep them from doing something dangerous.
"We wanted self-driving cars. We got retracting door handles." - me.
The stuff that really needs to be worked on doesn't pay that well and isn't appreciated. Fast factory automation. Security for the power grid and Internet backbone. Non-AI systems to monitor AI systems to keep them from doing something dangerous.
"We wanted self-driving cars. We got retracting door handles." - me.
On the contrary, a fair bit of the stuff that really needs to be worked on pays super well but is boring, stressful and tedious. You don't get self driving cars without hand labelling billions of images or civil projects without dealing with the worst kind of politics.
> You don't get [...] civil projects without dealing with the worst kind of politics.
But this does not need builder skills, but robber baron skills. :-(
But this does not need builder skills, but robber baron skills. :-(
We have self-driving cars. Waymo's doing great in SF and LA, soon Austin and elsewhere.
> doesn't pay that well and isn't appreciated
I believe the current sad state of robotics is because many people seem to be wanting to build robots, so employers think they can afford paying peanuts.
And for peanuts, you may hire a lot of personalities, but by definition you cannot hire people striving for swift commercial success. So those people will just have their highly paying job at a bank, aforementioned adtech or big tech. Which are all not build many robots.
I always think if I was building robots, they will do all the things you may imagine and serve coffee when they're done.
I believe the current sad state of robotics is because many people seem to be wanting to build robots, so employers think they can afford paying peanuts.
And for peanuts, you may hire a lot of personalities, but by definition you cannot hire people striving for swift commercial success. So those people will just have their highly paying job at a bank, aforementioned adtech or big tech. Which are all not build many robots.
I always think if I was building robots, they will do all the things you may imagine and serve coffee when they're done.
There is that. I've seen plenty of robotic one-offs and small-volume demos.
That's changing. Robotics is finally starting to take off in the US. Amazon builds a thousand robots a day.[1] For comparison, the US has about 8,000 newborn babies a day.
[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-robotics-...
[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-robotics-...
As I see it, the problem of a robot in a workplace is that it's hard to integrate into a processes built around humans. But once you manage to bring some robots in, that factor will revert and now there will be much more straightforward to add more robots - a human will now be seen as a misfit that needs completely different scheduling.
The actual difference is that robot usually does only one thing, and any limitations and deficiencies will need to be taken care of by human workers.
Whereas a human needs all kinds of breaks throughout the day, needs conditioned workplace, unreliable in terms of durations and frequencies.
The actual difference is that robot usually does only one thing, and any limitations and deficiencies will need to be taken care of by human workers.
Whereas a human needs all kinds of breaks throughout the day, needs conditioned workplace, unreliable in terms of durations and frequencies.
On the job, you have to care about what other people think. Often, you have to care about it more than what you think.
You have to document your work, and produce test plans.
You have to execute part of someone else's plan, or prepare a plan such that someone else can execute part of it.
You have to juggle multiple tasks.
You have to write status reports and attend meetings; if you're lucky there isn't a lot of this.
You may have something enjoyable to work on, only to have that task cancelled or indefinitely shelved when you're many weeks or months into it and it's 85% complete, and then be put onto something that you like a lot less.
You have to document your work, and produce test plans.
You have to execute part of someone else's plan, or prepare a plan such that someone else can execute part of it.
You have to juggle multiple tasks.
You have to write status reports and attend meetings; if you're lucky there isn't a lot of this.
You may have something enjoyable to work on, only to have that task cancelled or indefinitely shelved when you're many weeks or months into it and it's 85% complete, and then be put onto something that you like a lot less.
What a sad essay with a simple answer to its title: “Not everything need be monetized”.
This essay could be easily transposed into other domains, for example “why are some good musicians not trying to get record contracts?”
From the essay:
> Many of our values are locally-set by our environment and peers
The mentality that $$ reflects social value is a social sickness that to some degree of course has existed in all societies, but it has become particularly pernicious in the USA over the past 40+ years.
I was shocked that my tween/teen stepkids knew the financial arrangements of their favorite professional athletes and which of their friends’ parents were on the Forbes Midas list (which I hadn’t even heard of).
Culture has become professionalized to the point where I never see kids wearing homemade Halloween costumes — they are all branded.
Apparently “doing something because you want to” is no longer considered a mainstream attitude.
This essay could be easily transposed into other domains, for example “why are some good musicians not trying to get record contracts?”
From the essay:
> Many of our values are locally-set by our environment and peers
The mentality that $$ reflects social value is a social sickness that to some degree of course has existed in all societies, but it has become particularly pernicious in the USA over the past 40+ years.
I was shocked that my tween/teen stepkids knew the financial arrangements of their favorite professional athletes and which of their friends’ parents were on the Forbes Midas list (which I hadn’t even heard of).
Culture has become professionalized to the point where I never see kids wearing homemade Halloween costumes — they are all branded.
Apparently “doing something because you want to” is no longer considered a mainstream attitude.
> Why are you building a graphics card inside minecraft instead of inside nvidia?
Before you can build inside NVIDIA, you have to convince the people in charge that this is a project worth building. They're not going to hire some guy that plays Minecraft all day and the people within the company that do build things are at least 2 layers removed from anyone who directs the new projects.
The most I can do within my own company is make small tweaks to an existing project. Anything that will need multiple people turns into a political battle.
Before you can build inside NVIDIA, you have to convince the people in charge that this is a project worth building. They're not going to hire some guy that plays Minecraft all day and the people within the company that do build things are at least 2 layers removed from anyone who directs the new projects.
The most I can do within my own company is make small tweaks to an existing project. Anything that will need multiple people turns into a political battle.
Building things on your own time for fun is completely different than building things while being beholden to a manager, having to attend daily scrums, having to take direction from Product people, UI designers, UX experts, filling out Jira tickets, arguing with your coworkers about what a variable should be called, what an endpoint route should be, being asked to point your work, logging your time, thinking about how things will be compatible with the other systems, getting two PR reviews and approval from architecture, being asked to attend the town hall, being questioned about why you used an abstract class instead of an interface. The list goes on and on.
It's like night and day.
It's like night and day.
After setting up static IP between two computers, (1) it was not so bad, and (2) I estimate I am two decades behind.
The only way to catch up is to foster an environment where one must create the things one wants to do. Make a game to play one. Write the screenplay instead of watching the movie. Make paper models, sketch wireframes, and read books.
All I can do is block, block, block. Be bored or burning calories. Be the only one--for a while, maybe--who can quit vi or compile a program.
Fundamentally, mechanics, math, and programming. Write adventures, design levels, and port Photoshop tutorials to Gimp.
Foster a network, but (locally) not many may subscribe to this quirky constellation.
The only way to catch up is to foster an environment where one must create the things one wants to do. Make a game to play one. Write the screenplay instead of watching the movie. Make paper models, sketch wireframes, and read books.
All I can do is block, block, block. Be bored or burning calories. Be the only one--for a while, maybe--who can quit vi or compile a program.
Fundamentally, mechanics, math, and programming. Write adventures, design levels, and port Photoshop tutorials to Gimp.
Foster a network, but (locally) not many may subscribe to this quirky constellation.
This is something I have questioned myself, in many many places there are extremely talented young people who are doing impressive, labor intensive work which is completely useless.
On the one hand there is obviously immense value to doing useless things (almost everything I ever learned was from doing useless things) and I think it is impossible to begrudge them in any way. But again and again I see people who are doing nothing else with their immense talent and whose entire life revolves around a singular vanity obsession (video game speed running, as just one example).
Surely, there has to be some reason that these people won't/can't live out their obsessions in a way that both financially benefits them and society at large.
On the one hand there is obviously immense value to doing useless things (almost everything I ever learned was from doing useless things) and I think it is impossible to begrudge them in any way. But again and again I see people who are doing nothing else with their immense talent and whose entire life revolves around a singular vanity obsession (video game speed running, as just one example).
Surely, there has to be some reason that these people won't/can't live out their obsessions in a way that both financially benefits them and society at large.
What makes you think they are doing nothing else with their talent? Lots of speed runners are just high achievers and are doing it on the side while they work through college. Some have built a career on speed running. Some do it for charity at GDQ. It is a thing mainly young people do while they have free time. It is also a good social outlet.
We've run out of useful things.
That's like saying we have run our of problems.
Many of our problems are caused by the useless things we are doing because we have run out of useful things. Some wars, for example. We can't allocate more people to making things from scratch, so the excess goes towards stealing them from our neighbors.
One reason someone might build a virtual video card instead of a real one at Nvidia is that they don't have the EE and computer engineering skills to build video cards. The two are not comparable.
In order to build a virtual video card, you have to understand the EE and CE and CS stuff to the point where you're able to do that. That's the point of the article, is that there are ways in which they are comparable. In one you're using minecraft as the UI to implement things. At Nvidia you'd use Cadence as the UI instead.
This is not even comparable. Yes you can implement a simple graphics card or a RISC CPU in a video game. But that doesn’t mean you have the skill to build any practical modern graphics card or design a modern CISC CPU. You can learn about the basics of these things during a single semester at university and that’s likely what these “video gamers” did. It’s nothing impressive to recreate a RISC-V CPU in some game, only people who have no knowledge in this subject are somehow “impressed” by such things every time it’s brought up.
Building a slow CPU means you're much closer to being able to build a fast CPU than people who can't build any CPU. Companies that want to build fast CPUs should be preferentially hiring these people.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s a huge learning gap between this and a modern consumer CPU. Assembling together logic gates and understanding a simple RISC-V implementation is literally almost nothing when compared to the years you’d have to spend intensively learning just so you could get to the level of being able to design a Pentium 4 from scratch.
Now try teaching someone who's never touched a computer to build a Pentium 4.
[deleted]
The article is asserting that there's some meaningful absence of famous outliers in this generation, but it doesn't really support that assertion...are you sure there aren't any? It took a while for me to be aware of the people listed in the article, they were already very successful before I knew who most of them were. There are plenty of people building graphics cards at Nvidia currently, why don't they count? Plenty of young people are still striking it rich making video games and software, why don't they count? Even if it is true, I would suspect it has more to do with there being fewer low-hanging-fruit opportunities regarding internet tech, rather than the younger generation being too addicted to video games.
"Why aren't you getting paid 300k at NVidia"
Well gee maybe NVidia has it wrong asking for Masters and PhD's with a background in semiconductor devices to even be able to play ball! NVidia's wrong!
They're so wrong about what they need they're only the 4th most valuable company in the world.
OR doing stuff like that might be clever but doesn't translate to useful skills or products?
Well gee maybe NVidia has it wrong asking for Masters and PhD's with a background in semiconductor devices to even be able to play ball! NVidia's wrong!
They're so wrong about what they need they're only the 4th most valuable company in the world.
OR doing stuff like that might be clever but doesn't translate to useful skills or products?
Why not make your kids do the dishes with some gamification instead of having them play video games and see how it goes.
That builder might just be the wrong suspect in this two-party relationship issue.
Maybe your products need more awe, your attitude needs more respect and you might just give it a try to look at the person and not just see their exploitable potential as a start.
With your kids, reward them with more responsibilty, choice and partial ownership of your household and its direction and decor, and it might actually work out. Share your assets and see what they will be used for by those you see so much potential in.
In a way that is what those interships and simple tinkering allowed when companies were smaller and the industry was less complex. Finding ways to encourage them and supporting their ideas instead of looking for work force for your own projects might just be a real investment in everbody's future.
You might just have to give up the idea that it's now your turn to lead (from that inherited spot).
It just has always been your turn to add value.
Invest your (real) assets.
That builder might just be the wrong suspect in this two-party relationship issue.
Maybe your products need more awe, your attitude needs more respect and you might just give it a try to look at the person and not just see their exploitable potential as a start.
With your kids, reward them with more responsibilty, choice and partial ownership of your household and its direction and decor, and it might actually work out. Share your assets and see what they will be used for by those you see so much potential in.
In a way that is what those interships and simple tinkering allowed when companies were smaller and the industry was less complex. Finding ways to encourage them and supporting their ideas instead of looking for work force for your own projects might just be a real investment in everbody's future.
You might just have to give up the idea that it's now your turn to lead (from that inherited spot).
It just has always been your turn to add value.
Invest your (real) assets.
> [Founding of Facebook, Stripe, Snapchat.]
> I offer several potential answers:
4: The ability to find obsessive geniuses with projects is greater thanks to cheap social media, but most of them (still) aren't born into the entrepreneurial class which has the economic safety-nets and social connections etc. for creating an actual business and retaining control of it.
> I offer several potential answers:
4: The ability to find obsessive geniuses with projects is greater thanks to cheap social media, but most of them (still) aren't born into the entrepreneurial class which has the economic safety-nets and social connections etc. for creating an actual business and retaining control of it.
These people are doing something enjoyable. Having fun is rarely profitable.
If working for nVidia was non-stop fun, they wouldn't need to pay people. They could charge for it.
If working for nVidia was non-stop fun, they wouldn't need to pay people. They could charge for it.
Exhibit A: Game development. Fun job, consequently paid comparatively terribly to other software roles, and includes poor treatment from the management side since if anyone burns out they just take the next one standing in line.
As I said in another comment, it's really all a matter of perspective. Why is minecraft fun and coding something not?
Baring the possibility that you can trick yourself into finding anything fun (in which case, I guess you experience joy all the time? Jealous), no one is in control of what they find fun. The why of it doesn't matter in a practical sense.
Why is playing Minecraft fun, but digging mines is not? Seems the same to me
Real life mining would be fun too if you didn't get tired and could respawn if you died. And if you could tell if that pile of dirt you're looking at has 0.1% gold in it or not. AGI robots are really gonna have a blast doing things.
Digging mines involves actual physical toil. Coding and minecraft both involve sitting and clicking things on a screen.
Let's try another analogy
Let's try another analogy
The corporate world beckons you.
I've worked in big tech, my side projects and hobbies are not in any way equivalent to work in a job while on the surface they both involve coding.
But even corporate work can be fun if you approach it in a detached way while understanding (accurately) that it doesn't really matter. This is a privilege you have when you don't have children or debt.
But even corporate work can be fun if you approach it in a detached way while understanding (accurately) that it doesn't really matter. This is a privilege you have when you don't have children or debt.
> Minecraft is more enjoyable
I think this bears expanding on. Building video cards in Minecraft, you don’t have to do what you’re told, and there’s no project managers or HR.
I think this bears expanding on. Building video cards in Minecraft, you don’t have to do what you’re told, and there’s no project managers or HR.
I find this article incredibly ignorant right from the start. The basic assumption is "people are doing incredible things inside of video games, why aren't they doing this outside?". And then the next portion reads:
> Why are you building a graphics card inside minecraft instead of inside nvidia?
This idea where "why don't you just overcome all the stuff in your reality that is holding you back to be like all the people who don't struggle with these things" is just such a fundamentally idiotic brainspace.
Then they bring up names like Carnegie, Ford and John Rockefeller and how early they got started working and comparing that to themselves how they would "have killed for a tech internship at 14". Carnegie born 1888, John Ford born 1894, John Rockefeller born 1839. They weren't even born in the CENTURY that our concepts of work and education come from let alone the millenial shift in technology that changed literally everything about how we evaluate and view people.
But sure, an internship at 14 at FAANG is feasible if your own parents know someone in that space, you have a school that looks at that as an opportunity and you have enough pre-existing access to technology and knowledge to do ANYTHING at one of these companies than fetch coffee or whatever the equivalent of stacking paper is these days. UGH!
> Why are you building a graphics card inside minecraft instead of inside nvidia?
Minecraft is more enjoyable
Minecraft is more addictive
Minecraft found them first
They don’t know the latter option exists, or how they would do it, or think they’d fail at it
This idea where "why don't you just overcome all the stuff in your reality that is holding you back to be like all the people who don't struggle with these things" is just such a fundamentally idiotic brainspace.
Then they bring up names like Carnegie, Ford and John Rockefeller and how early they got started working and comparing that to themselves how they would "have killed for a tech internship at 14". Carnegie born 1888, John Ford born 1894, John Rockefeller born 1839. They weren't even born in the CENTURY that our concepts of work and education come from let alone the millenial shift in technology that changed literally everything about how we evaluate and view people.
But sure, an internship at 14 at FAANG is feasible if your own parents know someone in that space, you have a school that looks at that as an opportunity and you have enough pre-existing access to technology and knowledge to do ANYTHING at one of these companies than fetch coffee or whatever the equivalent of stacking paper is these days. UGH!
Builders also can have whimsical side projects like those highlighted in the article
They're doing what they love.
You don't really get it, take away the wrapper of minecraft and it's the same thing. At that point it's literally just a change of perspective from putting a ton of effort towards building something that helps others vs building something that helps no one.
This is what I was gonna say - they're building, they just may not be building the next venture capitalist funded business. Who says we need more of those anyway?
[deleted]
This is a fairly good article, but doesn't take into account that now everyone knows how unfair capitalism is through information sharing using the internet... you already lost before you were born. Why play hard into a game of monopoly where everyone already owned all the property and you just keep rolling around the board landing on everyone else's stuff paying them rent?
If there was something besides getting an investor who will take over control and make your stock useless by any means possible... then maybe builders would participate more?
If there was something besides getting an investor who will take over control and make your stock useless by any means possible... then maybe builders would participate more?
Want more people with the builder mindset?
Bring back high school and junior high shop classes, along with the obligatory grizzled shop teacher who dispenses cautionary tales ("Yeah, I had a student with long hair who leaned over the drill press that way. Scalped herself." "Yeah, I had a student who spilled some molten aluminum in his shoe. Learned to do the Highland Fling without any lessons.")
Those used to be available to all students. Now, when they even exist, they're shoved off into "vocation" programs, which in practice serve as a dumping ground for those deemed unfit for a college education (its own form of bigotry... you can't be a skilled machinist, programming CNC tools, or even machining by hand, if you're stupid).
Bring back high school and junior high shop classes, along with the obligatory grizzled shop teacher who dispenses cautionary tales ("Yeah, I had a student with long hair who leaned over the drill press that way. Scalped herself." "Yeah, I had a student who spilled some molten aluminum in his shoe. Learned to do the Highland Fling without any lessons.")
Those used to be available to all students. Now, when they even exist, they're shoved off into "vocation" programs, which in practice serve as a dumping ground for those deemed unfit for a college education (its own form of bigotry... you can't be a skilled machinist, programming CNC tools, or even machining by hand, if you're stupid).
Why would you want to do that? Realistically you are not going to manufacture stuff by hand in your life. Having 3D printing shop in every school would be useful but perhaps not that much of a fun.
I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands. Isn't that's what machine does for you.
I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands. Isn't that's what machine does for you.
> Why would you want to do that?
The same reason people cook fancy dinners, or knit, or paint -- the desire to create.
> I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands.
You're not everybody.
The same reason people cook fancy dinners, or knit, or paint -- the desire to create.
> I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands.
You're not everybody.
You're also not everybody. Have you gone around asking people how much of them will craft anything with their hands without a lot of guidance?
I imagine most of the stuff will be collecting dust almost all the time, especially as the safety requirements will preclude students using them without supervision.
I imagine most of the stuff will be collecting dust almost all the time, especially as the safety requirements will preclude students using them without supervision.
> You're also not everybody.
No, of course not.
> Have you gone around asking people how much of them will craft anything with their hands without a lot of guidance?
I do in fact know dozens of people who knit, paint, cook, engage in home improvement projects, sew, and do many other things with their hands, with essentially zero "guidance".
Are you claiming that you do not?
No, of course not.
> Have you gone around asking people how much of them will craft anything with their hands without a lot of guidance?
I do in fact know dozens of people who knit, paint, cook, engage in home improvement projects, sew, and do many other things with their hands, with essentially zero "guidance".
Are you claiming that you do not?
Cooking is a nice activity since every dish is unique. Fixing your own home also is.
However, trying to manufacture some widgets for sale is a futile activity for most of the people.
However, trying to manufacture some widgets for sale is a futile activity for most of the people.
Why would they have to be sold?
Just like the other examples, what's wrong with creating things for yourself to make your life easier?
I know many engineers that use their CAD skills to design 3d-printed objects. Not once had they thought of monitizing their creations; they simply use it to make their own lives easier and improve QoL.
Just like the other examples, what's wrong with creating things for yourself to make your life easier?
I know many engineers that use their CAD skills to design 3d-printed objects. Not once had they thought of monitizing their creations; they simply use it to make their own lives easier and improve QoL.
That's why I say I see value in school 3D printing.
But not in a school machining shop since that's a very niche skill. You don't need to machine widgets for your home that much, it is a marketable skill with poor market.
But not in a school machining shop since that's a very niche skill. You don't need to machine widgets for your home that much, it is a marketable skill with poor market.
The person who builds a graphics card in Minecraft isn’t passing an interview and 2+ additional rounds. Plus, requirements are high AF - almost asinine
>Where are the builders?
They're not going to wait around for a financial opportunity, they're just going to go ahead and build.
Some of them are going to start early too.
People are trying to screw you financially all the time anyway.
Might as well build whatever the fuck they want.
So what if it's world class?
As long as it doesn't cost hardly anything or require other people's money, look what can be done when some of these outstanding efforts reach a milestone.
The leverage is through the roof.
Just imagine if some of these people had actual capital to work with.
Sheesh.
Naturally, it's all about the terms, always has been.
Nothing but an indictment of capitalists who don't know how to do their part and leverage technology as good as they should.
The builders are there, they have not left the building.
They're not going to wait around for a financial opportunity, they're just going to go ahead and build.
Some of them are going to start early too.
People are trying to screw you financially all the time anyway.
Might as well build whatever the fuck they want.
So what if it's world class?
As long as it doesn't cost hardly anything or require other people's money, look what can be done when some of these outstanding efforts reach a milestone.
The leverage is through the roof.
Just imagine if some of these people had actual capital to work with.
Sheesh.
Naturally, it's all about the terms, always has been.
Nothing but an indictment of capitalists who don't know how to do their part and leverage technology as good as they should.
The builders are there, they have not left the building.
You are not actually a builder at a modern large tech company.
My day job consists of lots and lots of org politics. I'm technically in management (though I tried to keep my SWE title as long as possible), and I view my job as "I put up with the political bullshit so that my reports don't have to." But realistically, they are not builders either. They are spelunkers, hackers, maybe even developers - but the majority of their job consists of digging around in a 5M-line codebase to understand what is possible, communicating that back up to management, and then implementing a trivial change because trivial changes are realistically all you can do in a 5M-line codebase. The builders were the folks I learned from, who were employed as SWEs 20 years ago.
Computer games create just enough of an artificial, static sandbox that you can learn the rules and get really good at putting together parts. In a big tech company, some executive is going to change the rules in 3 months, and everything you know will be obsolete in a year. And that's not because the execs are stupid or capricious (although sometimes they are), but because the market's rules change every 3 months or so. Like it or not, a market economy's function is to satisfy people's desires, and as the article notes, people's desires are fleeting. But building requires foundations, it requires stability, and so we create that artificial stability with games so that you can build.