4 ms·

I've kinda been wanting to post this as a general Ask HN for a while but it would probably (understandably) be received as absolutely douchey... So I'll preten

by s5300 6y ago

I've kinda been wanting to post this as a general Ask HN for a while but it would probably (understandably) be received as absolutely douchey... So I'll pretentiously ask it here: Has the entirety of the Facebook Oculus shit changed anybody's view of Carmack? Without saying much more... it definitely has mine.

rantwasp 6y ago
change it how? i think Carmack is a super smart guy that has made significant contributions when it comes to games, game engines and VR.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
1propionyl 6y ago
No, not particularly. I know some principled, driven, and wonderful people who work for Facebook. While I despise Facebook as a company, that doesn't reflect negatively on said people, at least insofar as they do not work on the kinds of things that I dislike Facebook for. I would however hold them to account and openly criticize them if they did start working on such things. And I can and do criticize them when they spin apologia for Facebook as a company.
- duncan_bayne 6y ago
  > at least insofar as they do not work on the kinds of things that I dislike Facebook for. Why do you draw that distinction? Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole?
  - 1propionyl 6y ago
    > Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole? No, probably not. But I still draw that distinction. I'm not a strict consequentialist. I think that people's intents matter and that their inner lives have moral significance. So, for me, that outcome (Facebook benefiting) is only one factor in the moral calculus. In the case of the people I know (and likely John Carmack, though I don't know him), it isn't the dominating factor.
mcguire 6y ago
By entrepreneurial standards, he made out like a bandit, and got clear before Facebook changed the rules. He's a genius.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  Is he not with Facebook anymore?
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "On November 13, 2019, Carmack announced that he is stepping down from the Oculus CTO role to become a "Consulting CTO" in order to allocate more time to his work on artificial general intelligence (AGI)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack#Career)
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
No, why would it? Carmack stepped down as CTO of Oculus a year ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/john-carmack-leaves-oculus-research-artificial-general-intelligence-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/john-carmack-leaves-oculus-r...
- s5300 6y ago
  Uhh... He still works directly with them?
Tepix 6y ago
It's disappointing that Carmack is still working for them in some capacity. I wonder if Michael Abrash is OK with Facebooks behaviour. He hasn't commented on it as far as i know and he is still leading their VR R&D.

by s5300 6y ago

rantwasp 6y ago

change it how? i think Carmack is a super smart guy that has made significant contributions when it comes to games, game engines and VR.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

1propionyl 6y ago

No, not particularly. I know some principled, driven, and wonderful people who work for Facebook. While I despise Facebook as a company, that doesn't reflect negatively on said people, at least insofar as they do not work on the kinds of things that I dislike Facebook for. I would however hold them to account and openly criticize them if they did start working on such things. And I can and do criticize them when they spin apologia for Facebook as a company.

duncan_bayne 6y ago
> at least insofar as they do not work on the kinds of things that I dislike Facebook for. Why do you draw that distinction? Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole?
- 1propionyl 6y ago
  > Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole? No, probably not. But I still draw that distinction. I'm not a strict consequentialist. I think that people's intents matter and that their inner lives have moral significance. So, for me, that outcome (Facebook benefiting) is only one factor in the moral calculus. In the case of the people I know (and likely John Carmack, though I don't know him), it isn't the dominating factor.

mcguire 6y ago

By entrepreneurial standards, he made out like a bandit, and got clear before Facebook changed the rules. He's a genius.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
Is he not with Facebook anymore?
- mcguire 6y ago
  "On November 13, 2019, Carmack announced that he is stepping down from the Oculus CTO role to become a "Consulting CTO" in order to allocate more time to his work on artificial general intelligence (AGI)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack#Career)

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

No, why would it? Carmack stepped down as CTO of Oculus a year ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/john-carmack-leaves-oculus-research-artificial-general-intelligence-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/john-carmack-leaves-oculus-r...

s5300 6y ago
Uhh... He still works directly with them?

Tepix 6y ago

It's disappointing that Carmack is still working for them in some capacity. I wonder if Michael Abrash is OK with Facebooks behaviour. He hasn't commented on it as far as i know and he is still leading their VR R&D.