I agree with your statement (not with the virtue signaling part, but I will ignore it for now). To me, it reminds me like one of those "I gave $100 to a stranger" youtube videos. That end up making $10k from views.
There is nothing wrong with giving $100 to a person in need, while looking all smug and dressed up, and then... the world congratulates you by giving you a lot more than you gave. Rather than... I don't know, donate the $10k to several people in need to begin with? There is a disgusting fakeness associated with all of these things. A pretense of "Look at me! We are the good guys", while we are filthy narcissistic greedy people under the skin instead. Using somebody else's misery to feed our messiah complex.
Or like those shitty "SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS", will people enjoy being around a hot mom breastfeed in public, but look down on a non-attractive mom breastfeeding in public? Facebook is littered with crap, staged, cheap money-grab, "experiments" like this.
It's like, an action that is acted on seemingly selflessly but contains hidden catches and motives.
It's not bad... just.. icky. I call this the Valentines-day-complex. It pretends to be a celebration of love, but under the hood it's all about chocolates and flowers and spending. It doesn't have to be about spending... but about spending it will be!
I had an imaginary friend. It was a dog. My parents wouldn't get me a puppy, so I just imagined having one.
It was a lot of work because I imagined having to take it for walks (so I would walk around the block), or try to train it. In the end my imaginary dog bit someone (but it was self defense!) and I had to put it to sleep. No wonder I 'm now a depressive adult.
After a depression episode, my brother convinced me to adopt a dog. I rescued a cute little puppy from a shelter, and she became my whole world.
Without a doubt, adopting a dog was the best decision in my life. I highly recommend you consider doing the same, no matter how many adjustments you may have to make in your life to accommodate a new family member.
I've been asked why I let my cat control my life as much as I do (eg, I've passed up jobs that would have required me to move abroad just because I didn't want to put my cat through the moving abroad process), but she's an important part of my life and has helped me through difficult times.
My guess is that throwaway's statement was hyperbole, and Bed Bath and Beyond isn't a literal example of an employer that requires a polygraph. Instead it was an exaggeration meant to show how common the practice is in his circles.
My guess would be. Some sys admin did something illegal (some sort of fraud or something). So management wanted changes to prevent that in the future. And the cover your ass move was "we'll use polygraphs on new people!".
Do not hire people who do this. Most of them will say "over 200m downloads of npm packages". Go and take a look. If you see things like 'is-not-foo, checks if a given string is not equal to the string "foo"', and 0 meaningful contributions, either pay no attention to these claims or pass.
I am going to be downvoted, but this needs to be said.
The problem with the indie developers is that many of them are driven by greed and only greed. But that is hidden behind a veil of "we are the underdogs, passionate people, like you!". In reality, it's just a job like any other, and the "we are passionate", is the equivalent of "we are changing the world by... uhh disrupting!" that startup kool-aid drinkers say.
Let me give you an example. I dated a twitter semi-famous indie dev a while ago. She has a day job but makes games on the side. I have a day job and I make music on the side. I remember I was in a room with her, and was looking in ordering Aztec death whistles (it's a whistle that sounds like a human scream), to use into my music. She asked me "oh and how many people will like that?" To which I answered, "Right now I have 10 listeners. After the death whistles maybe I will have 5" and grinned. I make music for me, not for anyone else. If somebody happens to like it, that's fine. It's a hobby and a form of self-expression, like people cook for themselves or practice archery for themselves. I am not looking into becoming famous. In a sense, I am free to create what i want, and I am limited only but my skills and what I can do, not by what I must do.
She looked troubled... So I stopped and observed. She was looking at how many copies a game sold, and was chatting on FB with another on-twitter-all-day indie dev, about how many copies his game sold. Then she proclaimed that the next title would be different, way more appealing to the masses. I put my guitar down, stopped trying to sing "love will tear us apart" but in tuvan throat singing! And proclaimed, wait you 're selling out? How can you be selling out, the game doesn't even exist yet!!
She replied "So what? There is no same in wanting to make a good living from your art. Not everybody is like you and is happy with just... playing. Never advancing to the next stage. Never making something meaningful.".
I WAS SHOCKED. I still am. No wonder it didn't work out in the end. But... she told me, she had started making games because the game industry was full of stereotypes. Boys are the space marine, and girls play barbie's mini games, barbie pets her horse, barbie goes on a date with Ken, bullshit. That she wanted to make a difference, it was her passion, she wanted to prove that there can be fun games that are not gender-biased and that everyone can enjoy. I thought it was a noble, experimentation, passion project, like music is for me.
No. No, making games is not the end itself. Making games is means to an end. Indie devs are greed-driven. Not passion driven.
I hanged out with a few of them in GDC this year. They all care about money. I felt like I was at a dinner with C* level people that just like gossiping about IPOs and how much money some friends, or friends of friends of friends raised. All about money. "This game sold 700k copies!!! It uses unity assets". "That guy from romania made X million dollars!?!?".
There was a guy, who put a game on early access, then delayed the game's release for 10 years, because he made enough money to buy a house in San Francisco, and just did... nothing afterwards. Just talks to people with a "holier than thou" attitude. Meanwhile the game aged so bad, it went from a 7/10 to a 3/10 when it finally got out 9 years late!!!! How dare you! All these people who paid you because they believed in you, and you just shit on them when you hit a certain $$$ in your savings account. But I guess... why wouldn't he. He already accomplished his end goal of MONEY.
Early access, what a shitty thing. No self-respecting musician would say; Here are the first 2 tracks of the album. And some drum tracks from the 3rd and 4th piece. Maybe in 5 years you will get the bass track for the 3rd piece too! No movie director would say; we released the green screen version, and when we raise enough money you will get to see the dragons and the elves. Only game devs do that.
The inherent problem I see with indie devs, is that they lie to their audience as much as themselves as well. When I see the new GTA V game, I know what I am getting into. I will pay $60 to run over some people. But with indie devs I am being schooled about the exploration and experimentation. About feelings, about difficult subjects that noone dared to mention in game medium before. I am intrigued, I am captivated, I am in love! And then... you find out that that indie-game, scooby-do-esque pulling the mask off it was Michael Bay, and Michael Bay's 30th transfomers film all along! All about money, all about making investors happy!
Music has forever changed. We musicians accepted that we won't be rich from our music, so we are liberated to scavenge for a few bucks to rent a van and go touring playing in 20-people shows. Usually when I hang out with musicians, we end up smoking weed and committing to jam sessions that may never happen. And then everyone gets really really excited when I pull the death whistle out.
Nobody has the resources for that. Some companies make OSes, and some companies send rockets to space. Those feats are also powered by thin wrappers over electron. /s
People seem to forget that C++ and opengl is cross-platform. And there are projects far bigger than slack, like ffmpeg and OpenCV that have existed for decades, always had very fast development cycles, with only a subset of the funding and money that Slack has, and stayed native and close to the metal forever.
A better answer would be, that Slack has deemed the benefits that would result from this as not that important. Or that the current team's expertise cannot handle the task. But they always looking into ways of improving the core product and experience.
Creating a web app with a multi-billion dollar valuation indicates it is their strength. Who cares about a little superfluous memory usage compared to that.
Slack didn't win because it was better, it won because businesses thought they were better. That's how most business software works: it creates a problem in the customer's mind in such a way as the customer naturally sees the product as the solution.
Slack is successful because of marketing, not technical superiority.
I worked at a small company that used Google Talk for office chat, and us developers complained because it was difficult to have a group conversation with. We started using Discord (we were familiar with it and liked the dark theme) and it caught on and we were quite productive with it. Our business types saw it and decided to "formalize" it, so they picked Slack and rolled it out company wide. Most people actually preferred Discord, but the business types preferred Slack (probably mostly because of marketing), and now we're all using Slack.
Now, Slack also didn't royally screw up as it scaled up (outages were rare and transparently reported), which is a credit to the developers and PR people. That being said, just because something is successful doesn't mean it's good; it could be, but that's tangential to the topic at hand.
Sure, but there are multiple "OpenGL on Metal/Vulkan" projects. Because it's possible to do so without all that much of a performance loss.
OpenGL effectively should die... but it's not going to be in favor of raw Metal/Vulkan, except in rare cases. Most people already use engines that abstract most of that away, and Metal/Vulkan are in basically every way better for those engines.
It is telling that the person arguing in favor of native C/C++ has to use a throwaway account for fear of going against the dominant force of opinion in our industry. We should be able to have these conversations openly without wondering if it makes us less employable.
Fair point. It's a thought that has gone through my head a few times. There are places that want you to conform to whatever it is we call "modern" software development, and I often find myself feeling uncomfortable about expressing an alternate viewpoint.
There's no conspiracy or anything going on here, and you're right it's wrong to assume. That's the general sentiment of what I was trying to say though.
