4 ms·

> Elon Musk, Paul Graham, Steve Yegge and now, sadly John Carmack. Your average hacker scoffs at the idea of religion or faith, but somehow is comfortable with

> Elon Musk, Paul Graham, Steve Yegge and now, sadly John Carmack. Your average hacker scoffs at the idea of religion or faith, but somehow is comfortable with complete unquestioning fealty to whichever person who did something interesting with technology in the past and made enough money to afford drugs you don’t get arrested for and then they started prophesying. Why do you characterize people you disagree with as having "complete unquestioning fealty" to any of these figures who did something interesting with technology in the past? Seriously, why do you think that accurately characterizes anyone's view? I think this observation that John Carmack made on Twitter has some merit to it - it doesn't mean that I worship John Carmack as my god, or even that I think he's necessarily correct about any other issue. And why would I need to do either of those things to think that the one specific observation of his that we're talking about in this thread has merit to it?

tclancy 20d ago
I am not lumping everyone in, more observing we are still amplifying the signal from radio stations that should have ceased broadcasting years ago.
- JuniperMesos 19d ago
  I don't think that John Carmack or any of the other people you mentioned are categorically not worth listening to because in some cases the accomplishments that originally made them famous are decades old. If you think that Carmack is wrong on this specific point, make an argument for why; I for one don't think he's wrong, and I think that putting him into a category of people who "should have ceased broadcasting decades ago" is simply avoiding engaging with what he actually said.
bitwize 19d ago
One of the great joys of following guys I admire like Carmack is the little smile I get when I see one of his tweets and go, "yeah, John Carmack was totally wrong about that." For example he argued that UI buttons should act on press rather than waiting for the release, and it's been a UI principle for decades that once a button is pressed you wait for the release on the button, giving the user one last chance to back out of a destructive operation by letting them move the pointer off the button and release. And I was like no, I don't care if you wrote Quake, or the Principia Mathematica, don't fuck with my UI expectations. Carmack has cheerfully admitted to being wrong in the past, for example admitting that the Saturn port of Doom should have used the Saturn's hardware primitives for a smoother experience rather than a faithful replication of the PC's BSP renderer which made it slow. When brilliant guys like him are wrong, they often are in profound ways.
- tclancy 19d ago
  I would suggest that last line is both wildly indulgent and dangerous. Inventing reasons why someone being completely wrong is actually helpful is a level of freedom no one really deserves.
  - bitwize 19d ago
    Someone being wrong almost always offers an opportunity for them or others to learn. If someone extremely smart is wrong, the gaps in their knowledge may point to interesting directions for the curious. Einstein was wrong to doubt the principles of quantum mechanics, but the conflicts with relativity he elaborated helped point the way for future physics work. Of course, it's important to be right when there are consequences on the line, but being wrong isn't ipso facto something bad.

tclancy 20d ago

I am not lumping everyone in, more observing we are still amplifying the signal from radio stations that should have ceased broadcasting years ago.

JuniperMesos 19d ago
I don't think that John Carmack or any of the other people you mentioned are categorically not worth listening to because in some cases the accomplishments that originally made them famous are decades old. If you think that Carmack is wrong on this specific point, make an argument for why; I for one don't think he's wrong, and I think that putting him into a category of people who "should have ceased broadcasting decades ago" is simply avoiding engaging with what he actually said.

bitwize 19d ago

One of the great joys of following guys I admire like Carmack is the little smile I get when I see one of his tweets and go, "yeah, John Carmack was totally wrong about that." For example he argued that UI buttons should act on press rather than waiting for the release, and it's been a UI principle for decades that once a button is pressed you wait for the release on the button, giving the user one last chance to back out of a destructive operation by letting them move the pointer off the button and release. And I was like no, I don't care if you wrote Quake, or the Principia Mathematica, don't fuck with my UI expectations. Carmack has cheerfully admitted to being wrong in the past, for example admitting that the Saturn port of Doom should have used the Saturn's hardware primitives for a smoother experience rather than a faithful replication of the PC's BSP renderer which made it slow. When brilliant guys like him are wrong, they often are in profound ways.

tclancy 19d ago
I would suggest that last line is both wildly indulgent and dangerous. Inventing reasons why someone being completely wrong is actually helpful is a level of freedom no one really deserves.
- bitwize 19d ago
  Someone being wrong almost always offers an opportunity for them or others to learn. If someone extremely smart is wrong, the gaps in their knowledge may point to interesting directions for the curious. Einstein was wrong to doubt the principles of quantum mechanics, but the conflicts with relativity he elaborated helped point the way for future physics work. Of course, it's important to be right when there are consequences on the line, but being wrong isn't ipso facto something bad.