2 ms·

> John Carmack says the code is OK He doesn't say it's okay, he engages in a weird kind of whataboutery like "Heck, professional software engineering struggles

> John Carmack says the code is OK He doesn't say it's okay, he engages in a weird kind of whataboutery like "Heck, professional software engineering struggles mightily with just making completely reproducable builds". I struggle to note one part of the article by the "retired software engineer" (as if that has any relevance either) that he deals with specifically. But since it's John Carmack we must let him wave his hand and say it is so. The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this, but again, who cares for precision and points argued with evidence when we have a name giving their opinion?

Joeboy 6y ago
> The Github issues are also far more enlightening than Carmack's tweets on this Totally agree. The "lockdown skeptics" articles significantly misrepresent the github issues. They imply that there are mysterious uncertainties creeping into the results, when the actual issues relate to things like failures to set RNG seeds consistently, or a checksum failing in a test due to floating point rounding differences in Cray supercomputers' native instructions. Most readers aren't going to investigate the github issues though.