5 ms·

> so I've noticed that I do want a map that works like a map - something I can explore and annotate. I don't doubt that there are use cases for a map that work

> so I've noticed that I do want a map that works like a map - something I can explore and annotate. I don't doubt that there are use cases for a map that works this way. Even if Google Maps covers 80-90% of the use-cases for mapping, mapping is an absolutely massive domain. 10-20% of use-cases still represents a huge volume. But it doesn't have to be Google Maps. It actually seems worse to be for one "maps" app try to handle all possible use-cases for a map. Why isn't there a separate different tool that handles the use-case you describe? I guess, going back to the original thesis, what would the "1983" replication of what Google Maps does, but faster. Or, what would the "1983" version of the mapping behavior you wanted. In the thread they say: > in 1998 if you were planning a trip you might have gotten out a paper road map and put marks on it for interesting locations along the way I'd argue that this use-case still exists. Paper road maps haven't gone away, so this is still an option. People largely don't use this and prefer Google Maps or other digital mapping tools for most of their problems. Why? If you gave me both the 1998 tools and the 2020 tools, for 95% of the options I'm going to use digital tools to solve it because they let me solve my problems faster and easier. I know this because I have easy access to paper maps and I never touch them. Because they're largely worse at the job. > There's a very subtle point the Twitter thread was making here. This use case may be most popular not because it's what the people want, but because it's all that they can easily do. The tools you use shape how you work, and what you can work on. Ultimately, my point above is my response to that. None of the old tools are gone. Paper maps are still available. And yet they have been largely abandoned by the large majority of the population. I agree that there are limitations to our current digital tools, and I hope in 2030 we have tools that do what the article describes. But the 1983 version of the tools are worse for solving problems than the current tools, for most people.

6510 7y ago
pretty much all games in the early 80's had [so called] pixel perfect scrolling. Each frame showed exactly what was required. Today it is entirely acceptable for a map to be a jerky stuttering pile of crap. The same goes for the infinite scroll implementations. Its preposterous to start loading things after they are needed. There is a good analogy with making things in the physical world. The professional doesn't start a job before he has everything he needs to do it, the amateur obtains what he needs after he needs them.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Games have huge advantages of constraint of application that mapping applications don't. You can get pixel perfect scrolling when you constrain the max rate the user can pass through the dataset, you deny them random access into the dataset, your dataset isn't trying to represent a space the volume of planet Earth, etc. There's a huge gulf between the use cases you're comparing here, and I don't believe for one second that loading the Google Maps dataset into Commander Keene's engine would make for a better experience. (Also, not to be overly pedantic, but "The professional doesn't start a job before he has everything he needs to do it" pretty much classifies all building construction as unprofessional. The professional doesn't magically have everything on-hand, especially bulky or expensive resources; they have a plan for acquiring them at reasonable rates of input and mitigation strategies if that plan can't be followed)
  - 6510 7y ago
    Illl ignore the pedantic part since it was just an analogy, if it doesn't work for you there is little to talk about. > Games have huge advantages of .... I have thoughts like that but I consider them "making up excuses". You don't have to see it that way but I can't see someone fix a problem by making up excuses for it to exist. For me it is just like you can always come up with an excuse not to do something. 8 gigabytes of memory / 64 kilobytes of memory = 125 000 times as much memory. 14 gigahertz (4 cores x 3.5 GHz) / 1.023 MHz = 13 685 times as much processor power. 4108 gigahertz (2560 Cuda cores / 1605 MHz) / 2 MHz = 2 054 000 times as much video power. Can I just call 2 Mhz memory bandwidth 16 Mbit/s? If so, 500 Mbit / 16 Mbit = 31.25 fold the bandwidth We are not rendering many layers of colorful animated game content. A map is just a bunch of boring lines. The modern screen however is a lot bigger. I see a glimmer of hope for an excuse! 320x200 px = 64000 px 1920x1080 px = 2073600 px 2073600 / 64000 = 32.4 times the screen size meh? We must applaud everyone involved in making all this hardware progress. It truly blows the mind and defies belief. No one could have imagined this. Then came weee the software people and... and..... I'm cringing to hard to continue writing this post. The numbers don't lie, we suck. Lets leave it at that.
    - 7y ago

6510 7y ago

pretty much all games in the early 80's had [so called] pixel perfect scrolling. Each frame showed exactly what was required. Today it is entirely acceptable for a map to be a jerky stuttering pile of crap. The same goes for the infinite scroll implementations. Its preposterous to start loading things after they are needed. There is a good analogy with making things in the physical world. The professional doesn't start a job before he has everything he needs to do it, the amateur obtains what he needs after he needs them.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Games have huge advantages of constraint of application that mapping applications don't. You can get pixel perfect scrolling when you constrain the max rate the user can pass through the dataset, you deny them random access into the dataset, your dataset isn't trying to represent a space the volume of planet Earth, etc. There's a huge gulf between the use cases you're comparing here, and I don't believe for one second that loading the Google Maps dataset into Commander Keene's engine would make for a better experience. (Also, not to be overly pedantic, but "The professional doesn't start a job before he has everything he needs to do it" pretty much classifies all building construction as unprofessional. The professional doesn't magically have everything on-hand, especially bulky or expensive resources; they have a plan for acquiring them at reasonable rates of input and mitigation strategies if that plan can't be followed)
- 6510 7y ago
  Illl ignore the pedantic part since it was just an analogy, if it doesn't work for you there is little to talk about. > Games have huge advantages of .... I have thoughts like that but I consider them "making up excuses". You don't have to see it that way but I can't see someone fix a problem by making up excuses for it to exist. For me it is just like you can always come up with an excuse not to do something. 8 gigabytes of memory / 64 kilobytes of memory = 125 000 times as much memory. 14 gigahertz (4 cores x 3.5 GHz) / 1.023 MHz = 13 685 times as much processor power. 4108 gigahertz (2560 Cuda cores / 1605 MHz) / 2 MHz = 2 054 000 times as much video power. Can I just call 2 Mhz memory bandwidth 16 Mbit/s? If so, 500 Mbit / 16 Mbit = 31.25 fold the bandwidth We are not rendering many layers of colorful animated game content. A map is just a bunch of boring lines. The modern screen however is a lot bigger. I see a glimmer of hope for an excuse! 320x200 px = 64000 px 1920x1080 px = 2073600 px 2073600 / 64000 = 32.4 times the screen size meh? We must applaud everyone involved in making all this hardware progress. It truly blows the mind and defies belief. No one could have imagined this. Then came weee the software people and... and..... I'm cringing to hard to continue writing this post. The numbers don't lie, we suck. Lets leave it at that.
  - 7y ago