3 ms·
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”.
by 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 agoNo. 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.