varunneal
They've prototyped displays that can test for it as well.
> A seasoned performance engineer was looking through Strobelight data and discovered that by filtering on a particular std::vector function call (using the symbolized file and line number) he could identify computationally expensive array copies that happen unintentionally with the ‘auto’ keyword in C++.
> The engineer turned a few knobs, adjusted his Scuba query, and happened to notice one of these copies in a particularly hot call path in one of Meta’s largest ads services. He then cracked open his code editor to investigate whether this particular vector copy was intentional… it wasn’t.
> It was a simple mistake that any engineer working in C++ has made a hundred times.
> So, the engineer typed an “&” after the auto keyword to indicate we want a reference instead of a copy. It was a one-character commit, which, after it was shipped to production, equated to an estimated 15,000 servers in capacity savings per year!
> If Jeffries started with a different core representation, then it's likely his subsequent design decisions would also change. The bookkeeping for constraint propagation might push him towards Norvig's relational approach to the rules of Sudoku; rather than continually recomputing the rows, columns, and boxes, he could simply have a map of each cell onto its peers. He could distill every lesson of the previous posts, creating something simpler and faster.
> But Jeffries isn't in the business of starting over. He not only believes in incremental design, but in using the smallest possible increments. In his posts, he regularly returns to GeePaw Hill's maxim of "many more much smaller steps." He is only interested in designs that are reachable through a series of small, discrete steps.
Jeffries has radicalized me. This sort of puttering-around with "incremental design" is too pervasive in the corporate world. In software we have the luxury of rethinking from first principles, and we must use it. Death to MMMSS
> In this sense, the gamer does not only include those who play video games (nor does it necessarily include all those who do). The gamer is a synecdoche; skateboarders, people who seriously play sports, interested music listeners, cinephiles, chess players, big wave surfers, and anyone else who orients their lives towards experiences that contain fun as a major ingredient are all subsumed into the persona. Casually playing a game on a subway or after a busy day to unwind doesn't by itself garner the gamer moniker, while taking paid vacation time to spend a focused 100 hours on Elden Ring does.
I think at the heart of tech, the pure hackers, and basically all great things come from these people. They are the people who take what they do seriously, and strive for perfection even where it is not utilitarian. It's how you avoid slop, and build great things...
To some extent I think the labels "gamer" and "nihilist" are overly generous. The divide is "people who love the tech" and "grifters". Creating video game is the least financially profitable venture for an expert software engineer, but (because of this) it is the most spiritually fulfilling. Every gamer knows the indie project made with love beats the billion dollar AAA project 9/10 times.
https://claude.site/artifacts/0f696bf8-399d-42c3-93c0-296493...