4 ms·

It’s amusing that from one side of your mouth you’re complaining about the frequency which John appears on hackernews, but from the other side of your mouth you

It’s amusing that from one side of your mouth you’re complaining about the frequency which John appears on hackernews, but from the other side of your mouth you’re relegating his body of work to “some cool games 20-30 years ago”. Yes, as a younger man he focused his expertise into pioneering developments in the video game space. But what of his engineering contributions to the fields of performance auto-motives, rocket science, or virtual reality? Maybe it is his technical aptitude and contributions to various fields of engineering is why he is such a popular figure to the audience of hackernews?

wredue 3y ago
He funds some ventures. His tech opinions of late have shifted largely to shudder clean and pushing terrible FP idioms with no evidence like “immutable first”. His relevance in tech is dried up as evidenced by the parroting of bullshit without taking a modicum of a second to actually think it through. I don’t particularly care what a dude that got rich making video games invests in. Edit: Listen guys, funding ventures != personally contributing to tech as the user I responded to is implying. This worship of carmack is weird. Like bezos also funded a rocket company, but isn’t worshiped for “contributions to rocket science”. Hypocrites.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  > funding ventures != personally contributing to tech Yes it is. So is being an adviser or a board member with technical background and a name that attracts further investment. This is why people like this receive generous equity and are considered part of the company when they’re advising a startup.
  - wredue 3y ago
    No. They’re implying that carmack is personally contributing code and knowledge in their post, when what he’s actually contributing to all his failed startups is capital. Carmack can contribute nothing to rocket science just like his opinions of programming are largely irrelevant today which is why he simply parrots whatever is currently hyped. And again, nobody says that Elon musk is personally driving rocket science (except a few people that he pays to publicly strike his ego) despite spacex clearly breaking various grounds. At least apply your “standards” of contribution equally.
oreally 3y ago
On the other side you should be very wary of blind idolism, news title bait and fanboy clubs. Maybe give a thought as to why you jumped to his defense when he probably hasn't ever met you? Was all the things surrounding Doom all it took to convince you he's worth defending in all other areas he's not had expertise in?
wait_a_minute 3y ago
Everything you said, plus that the sheer mention of his name and his new partnership will cause waves and investment to follow. He rests on a mountain of contributions and just his name and interest are enough to get something moving. The wise eye pays attention to this news and takes it into account, especially if it has even a passing interest in the space.

wredue 3y ago

He funds some ventures. His tech opinions of late have shifted largely to shudder clean and pushing terrible FP idioms with no evidence like “immutable first”. His relevance in tech is dried up as evidenced by the parroting of bullshit without taking a modicum of a second to actually think it through. I don’t particularly care what a dude that got rich making video games invests in. Edit: Listen guys, funding ventures != personally contributing to tech as the user I responded to is implying. This worship of carmack is weird. Like bezos also funded a rocket company, but isn’t worshiped for “contributions to rocket science”. Hypocrites.

wait_a_minute 3y ago
> funding ventures != personally contributing to tech Yes it is. So is being an adviser or a board member with technical background and a name that attracts further investment. This is why people like this receive generous equity and are considered part of the company when they’re advising a startup.
- wredue 3y ago
  No. They’re implying that carmack is personally contributing code and knowledge in their post, when what he’s actually contributing to all his failed startups is capital. Carmack can contribute nothing to rocket science just like his opinions of programming are largely irrelevant today which is why he simply parrots whatever is currently hyped. And again, nobody says that Elon musk is personally driving rocket science (except a few people that he pays to publicly strike his ego) despite spacex clearly breaking various grounds. At least apply your “standards” of contribution equally.

oreally 3y ago

On the other side you should be very wary of blind idolism, news title bait and fanboy clubs. Maybe give a thought as to why you jumped to his defense when he probably hasn't ever met you? Was all the things surrounding Doom all it took to convince you he's worth defending in all other areas he's not had expertise in?

wait_a_minute 3y ago

Everything you said, plus that the sheer mention of his name and his new partnership will cause waves and investment to follow. He rests on a mountain of contributions and just his name and interest are enough to get something moving. The wise eye pays attention to this news and takes it into account, especially if it has even a passing interest in the space.