5 ms·

He can meaningfully retire on facebook money. Good for him and I have no requirement for him to publicly criticize them. Also, facebook is the main company plow

He can meaningfully retire on facebook money. Good for him and I have no requirement for him to publicly criticize them. Also, facebook is the main company plowing money and top engineers into AR/VR. They also created react and pytorch. Facebook has had a massive impact on software.

fezfight 4y ago
Sure but the question isnt how did he decide to fortify a successful company with his reputstion, but an unethical one. Successful does not mean ethical. They're so unrelated as to be orthogonal.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
  Pioneering technology that pushes society forwards often comes from unsavory industries. Its a reality of life and a critical piece of capitalism
  - fezfight 4y ago
    And thus it always should? No. Carmack could apply his genius elsewhere, but he chose not to. I'd like to hear him explain why.
    - t-3 4y ago
      Do you honestly think there will be an explanation other than "they offered me a bunch of money to do $X"? Smart people aren't required to be self-righteous saints sacrificing themselves for the good of everyone else.
      - fezfight 4y ago
        If you ask me, his reputation was the thing that was sacrificed when he joined Facebook. His legacy is now: He was a brilliant pioneer in the first half of his career. Then he helped normalize and sustain an ethically dubious company. I care because I used to respect him and I can't quite make sense of his choice.
        fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
        fezfight 4y ago
        fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
        fezfight 4y ago
        azemetre 4y ago
        I don’t think this will actually be his legacy, many of the world’s famous scientists and engineers worked for companies, empires, and a variety of unsavory groups. I mean Charles Darwin was part of a scientific expedition for the British military, which at the time contributed real world misery and suffering on a global scale but this rarely comes up when discussing evolution. Maybe this time will be different or maybe after a few hundred years we trim details until it becomes a digestible snippet where you never mention the bad side.
        fezfight 4y ago
        Zuckerberg is probably the guy who will get figuratively crucified for the abusive shit Facebook did. Which is why it's crazy someone bright would be like, 'oh me too!' I assume he sees it differently. I'd like to understand.
        p1esk 4y ago
        For 99% of all people in the world, Zuckerberg will always be known as a brilliant mind who created Facebook - the social network. Right up there with Einstein and Elon Musk. They don't know about any abusive shit, don't want to know, and will never know.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
  Do you think id was an "ethical company"?
  - sph 4y ago
    Whataboutism at its best. Why do you think id was not ethical, and are you seriously trying to argue that Facebook is as unethical as id software?
    - sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
      > Whataboutism at its best. The poster suggested joining facebook was a new low in character for Carmack. So this is hardly "whataboutism" > are you seriously trying to argue that Facebook is as unethical as id software I guess it depends on what your concerns about Facebook are. Did id treat employees well? Did it produce products that made that world a better place? In the 90s there was just as much bad media and controversy surrounding Doom and violent video games as there is around Facebook. Just to clarify, I am not trying to compare them point for point. Just surprised that anyone would take issue with Carmack participating at FB. The guy is primarily known for making edgy entertainment products, not elementary schools. I don't have a problem with either.
      - fezfight 4y ago
        He's a folk hero in game dev at this point.
anonymoushn 4y ago
> They also created react It's not really comforting to know that Facebook is the reason the browser's find feature doesn't work on any web site, no computer is capable of running google chrome to browse a microblogging web site at 60fps, and modal forms commonly disappear losing the data you've entered into them if you resize your browser so you can see another window from which you are retrieving the data.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
  Regardless, react "solved" front end UI development. It has reduced churn in frameworks, and essentially determined how to handle state, render components on a loop. It was a breakthrough in web technology.
  - tambourine_man 4y ago
    If by “solved” you mean destroyed what wasn’t broken, sure.
- seattle_spring 4y ago
  Things that aren't React's fault: 1. Everything you mentioned in your comment.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    Implementing "responsive UI" using exclusively JavaScript and CSS-in-JS (rather than using CSS or not doing anything) was naughty and kludgey in 2010. The fact that it's now the "best practice" seems to have increased the rate at which forms delete themselves and the data users have typed in when the user makes the mistake of resizing the window (causing the user to briefly wonder whether computers have on the whole been worthwhile compared to the alternatives offered by mechanical printing presses, abacuses, papers, quills, and if one is feeling provocative, a typewriter, before repeating all the labor that they previously performed for their silicon master before it decided to unceremoniously discard it) Preventing the browser's "find" feature from searching the text on the page (causing the user to tear their hair out, bash their computer with a rock, borrow a wilderness survival book from the local library, drive to the countryside, abandon their vehicle at a rest stop, and renounce civilization once and for all) is a technique called List Virtualization and you can learn how to do it in React here: https://www.patterns.dev/posts/virtual-lists/ https://www.patterns.dev/posts/virtual-lists/. react-virtualized has over 1 million weekly downloads on npm. The benchmarks I was able to find comparing identical operations in different web frameworks look pretty bad for React as well.

fezfight 4y ago

Sure but the question isnt how did he decide to fortify a successful company with his reputstion, but an unethical one. Successful does not mean ethical. They're so unrelated as to be orthogonal.

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
Pioneering technology that pushes society forwards often comes from unsavory industries. Its a reality of life and a critical piece of capitalism
- fezfight 4y ago
  And thus it always should? No. Carmack could apply his genius elsewhere, but he chose not to. I'd like to hear him explain why.
  - t-3 4y ago
    Do you honestly think there will be an explanation other than "they offered me a bunch of money to do $X"? Smart people aren't required to be self-righteous saints sacrificing themselves for the good of everyone else.
    - fezfight 4y ago
      If you ask me, his reputation was the thing that was sacrificed when he joined Facebook. His legacy is now: He was a brilliant pioneer in the first half of his career. Then he helped normalize and sustain an ethically dubious company. I care because I used to respect him and I can't quite make sense of his choice.
      - fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
        fezfight 4y ago
        fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
        fezfight 4y ago
      - azemetre 4y ago
        I don’t think this will actually be his legacy, many of the world’s famous scientists and engineers worked for companies, empires, and a variety of unsavory groups. I mean Charles Darwin was part of a scientific expedition for the British military, which at the time contributed real world misery and suffering on a global scale but this rarely comes up when discussing evolution. Maybe this time will be different or maybe after a few hundred years we trim details until it becomes a digestible snippet where you never mention the bad side.
        fezfight 4y ago
        Zuckerberg is probably the guy who will get figuratively crucified for the abusive shit Facebook did. Which is why it's crazy someone bright would be like, 'oh me too!' I assume he sees it differently. I'd like to understand.
        p1esk 4y ago
        For 99% of all people in the world, Zuckerberg will always be known as a brilliant mind who created Facebook - the social network. Right up there with Einstein and Elon Musk. They don't know about any abusive shit, don't want to know, and will never know.
sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
Do you think id was an "ethical company"?
- sph 4y ago
  Whataboutism at its best. Why do you think id was not ethical, and are you seriously trying to argue that Facebook is as unethical as id software?
  - sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
    > Whataboutism at its best. The poster suggested joining facebook was a new low in character for Carmack. So this is hardly "whataboutism" > are you seriously trying to argue that Facebook is as unethical as id software I guess it depends on what your concerns about Facebook are. Did id treat employees well? Did it produce products that made that world a better place? In the 90s there was just as much bad media and controversy surrounding Doom and violent video games as there is around Facebook. Just to clarify, I am not trying to compare them point for point. Just surprised that anyone would take issue with Carmack participating at FB. The guy is primarily known for making edgy entertainment products, not elementary schools. I don't have a problem with either.
    - fezfight 4y ago
      He's a folk hero in game dev at this point.

anonymoushn 4y ago

> They also created react It's not really comforting to know that Facebook is the reason the browser's find feature doesn't work on any web site, no computer is capable of running google chrome to browse a microblogging web site at 60fps, and modal forms commonly disappear losing the data you've entered into them if you resize your browser so you can see another window from which you are retrieving the data.

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
Regardless, react "solved" front end UI development. It has reduced churn in frameworks, and essentially determined how to handle state, render components on a loop. It was a breakthrough in web technology.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  If by “solved” you mean destroyed what wasn’t broken, sure.
seattle_spring 4y ago
Things that aren't React's fault: 1. Everything you mentioned in your comment.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  Implementing "responsive UI" using exclusively JavaScript and CSS-in-JS (rather than using CSS or not doing anything) was naughty and kludgey in 2010. The fact that it's now the "best practice" seems to have increased the rate at which forms delete themselves and the data users have typed in when the user makes the mistake of resizing the window (causing the user to briefly wonder whether computers have on the whole been worthwhile compared to the alternatives offered by mechanical printing presses, abacuses, papers, quills, and if one is feeling provocative, a typewriter, before repeating all the labor that they previously performed for their silicon master before it decided to unceremoniously discard it) Preventing the browser's "find" feature from searching the text on the page (causing the user to tear their hair out, bash their computer with a rock, borrow a wilderness survival book from the local library, drive to the countryside, abandon their vehicle at a rest stop, and renounce civilization once and for all) is a technique called List Virtualization and you can learn how to do it in React here: https://www.patterns.dev/posts/virtual-lists/ https://www.patterns.dev/posts/virtual-lists/. react-virtualized has over 1 million weekly downloads on npm. The benchmarks I was able to find comparing identical operations in different web frameworks look pretty bad for React as well.