Forewarning, I don't have a ton to say about the core of Carmack's criticism. But there's various points that I think show color, that are worth highlighting.

Forewarning, I don't have a ton to say about the core of Carmack's criticism. But there's various points that I think show color, that are worth highlighting. > Burdensome regulations are put in place because the regulators feel rich enough to impose the costs of the “box tickers” necessary to comply with them. We have hosts of food regulations because there is no danger of starvation. It's wild to me that libertarians can believe such shit as this. Maybe perhaps we can get better about reducing what Master of Orion 3 referred to & which has stuck for me as "the heavy foot of governance", but this just seems like such a minor factor in the world, and it feels like this oppressive regulation but makes up the majority of so many people's entire personality, being affronted that our milk won't maybe start one day killing you. I like to ask, who has it better? What programming languages are so exceedingly better that their coders exist in some entirely different sphere, are clearly better able to live the core value and/or duct-tape lives described here? There's ups and downs around but largely it feels like most devs are living in some vague form of parity, somewhat more or less encumbered but generally everyone somewhat in the same realms of possibility & success: im unconvinced languages matter all that much. What about regulation? We have some very low regulation places in the world. Are they killing it? Is their world radically better, and better for whom? It just doesn't seem like regulation is dogging us as bad as JC's/libertarian's world view wants to believe. And we can safely drink milk. > For a lot of people, the number of "heads" below them in an org chart is a measure of their self worth. Striking a strong chord with my cynical side on this one though. I think this is the other cancer within capitalism. Ideally we'd have metrics & measures, be able to assess how well people are worked at a lower level, but orgs just judge by the market adoption not actual productivity or innovation or use, and we kind of promote arbitrarily as a result, aggregating up. Ideally I think we'd have smaller teams, smaller focuses. More different modest-scoped pokers in the fire rather than ever amassing fiefs of greater scope. > Bullshit jobs are a luxury good, and we are only going to see more of them as society continues to become wealthier. 300% not the trend I see happening. We seem to be in a massive "fire by default" mode, the stock price will probably go up.