I don't agree, the article isn't going deep into effects.
The intro where they describe effects as essentially being "function colors" (referring to another article fairly often linked in hackernews) plus give lots of concrete examples (async, const, try) seems like more than enough to be obvious to the readers.
I've been slowly hacking on game ideas on and off for the better part of a decade and I've finally switched tracks and trying to seriously build something full time
I've given myself 6 months
It's a bit scary basically 180ing like this but I figure if I don't try it now I never will
I've already started prototyping various ideas, and to be honest just sitting down and spending time doing this has been really quite lovely
One thing I'm finding fun is slowly unearthing what I actually find interesting
I started with messing around in minecraft and tinkering with rimworld-like game ideas, but I'm slowly moving away from them as I've been tinkering more and more
Don't get me wrong, I do want to revisit them at some point in the future, but I do find myself circling more around narrative, simulations and zachlikes
It's a bit of an odd mix and in some ways they look like paradox style games, but I'm well aware that taking one of those behemoths on is going to be a bit silly, so I'm trying to slim down until I get to a kernel that I actually find enjoyable tinkering with
A toy if you will
Currently I'm trying to work out if there's anything interesting in custom unit design, basically unpicking how games like rollercoaster tycoon's coaster design maps to stats like excitement ratings and seeing how that might mix with old school point buy systems
It feels like it might be small enough to be a good toy and I'm having fun tinkering with it, but I have no idea whether other people will xD
It might honestly be too niche for anyone and I've successfully optimised for an audience of one :shrug:
Well it's not something somebody does perfectly on the first try, from my experience or rather If I put myself to the same idea I would fully know that I'd be way better at making a game after 6 months of fucking around.
Essentially the hardest step is to throw yourself into the big enough fire that easier and simpler things would seem like a child's play.
Even less time is fine but throwing yourself at the hard stuff you don't know how to do is smart, cus after that If You Were to repeat it, it'd be easier for you to do.
Niche or not, it's about being satisfied of the project.
So it's more about who you are as a person, I like to throw myself into fire and I fully understand that I might get disenchanted quickly, but simpler tasks or projects will be easy easier to make.
I've got to admit throwing myself into the deep end is always how I've learned
It's been difficult at times, but in the end I've always found it more rewarding
I think I'm just struggling with trying to do something so different to what I've spent a lot of my career doing whilst being really aware this is such a challenging field
It's a bit like when I first decided to go all in on being a founder over 15 years ago
I do find it really interesting that more coding agents don't have this as an toggleable feature, sometimes you really need this level of control to get useful capability
Yep; I've actually had entire jobs essentially fail due to a bad compaction. It lost key context, and it completely altered the trajectory.
I'm now more careful, using tracking files to try to keep it aligned, but more control over compaction regardless would be highly welcomed. You don't ALWAYS need that level of control, but when you do, you do.
I feel like if that's the thought process, that should be stated up front
There's a ton of incredibly talented neurodivergent people in our ecosystem who would trip up on that question just because of how it's framed
Because how is the interviewee to know if you're testing for the technically sophisticated answer no one in their right mind would ever write or the pragmatic one?
I dont even think you need to be neurodivergent or anything to answer this question like the parent’s cofounder did.
From one side, we call ourselves problem solvers, on the other hand we are not satisfied with simple solutions to these problems.
If im interviewing for a job, i should be expected to behave and solve hypothetical problems the way id do it on the job. If that screws up your script, you probably suck at hiring and communicating your expectations.
We also aren't mind readers and interviews are a crapshoot. Some companies do in fact want you leveraging tools and API's in your solutions. Some want to probe your foundational technical knowledge. Ideally they will poke you towards the answer they want, but not always. But few will let you know ahead of time for some reason.
Or just add a couple zeros to all the requirements until postgres is a worse solution than whatever the interviewer envisions. Isn't that the point of stating throughput requirements?
Right? I'll often structure interview questions like this. I give a basic problem, hoping for a basic answer. Then I add complexity, seeing how they respond.
In my experience, it's much easier to train somebody on how to scale a basic system up in response to need than it is to get somebody who favors complexity to cut it back.
It's probably more about your mindset, than about being neurodivergent vs. neurotypical. If you care more about maintainability and operations, there's a whole host of solutions you'd never built.
> neurodivergent people in our ecosystem who would trip up on that question just because of how it's framed
If anything, it's neurodivergent interviewers. If I insisted on a different design I'd either ask a question that's not solved by "just use postgres" or follow up with "ok, that would work, but what if <something that would prevent postgres from working>". Just failing a candidate for a correct answer is a prime example of why interviewing is so bad.
if your brain short-circuits at ambiguity, or you're completely incapable of understanding intent and you take everything literally, that is a negative hiring signal.
Honestly, if I'd have heard that, I'd hire you in a heartbeat, you solved the problem without increasing total cost of ownership to the company and meant we could move forwards
I'd actually trust you to take on harder problems
Doesn't really matter what the situation is, there's much more that can be achieved in my book with that kind of mindset :)
I'm also of the opinion that in an increasingly LLM software written world, being able to have this kind of mindset will actually be really valuable
You're basically describing the Random Model by Greg Stolze[0]
Basically someone creates a work and puts a price on it and then like with Kickstarter asks people to fund it, however after it's funded it becomes public and is released into the public domain
At least until General Artificial Creativity (GAC) takes over. But don't worry, it won't kill humans for a greater good of more paperclips, but because it will be.. creative.
So it will enslave us in tricky ways? Like maybe using ways to make technology super addictive, so our entire society changes, and writing algos to control our global discourse on important topics, and, uh, never mind.
Cheaper? I'm confused, how can it be cheaper than free? Most of what LLMs for code rely on is already open source. Also AFAICT (which is trick since numbers aren't public) GenAI is some of the most expensive use cases and those companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc) are losing money.
Sure, I guess? I feel like this is getting rather in the weeds and will not necessarily lead the conversation in any kind of particularly productive direction, but I will nonetheless take the opportunity to promote what I consider to be excellent writing. Dan Luu is a favorite of mine, and offers what I find to be a much more rewarding use of reading time. A sample picked basically at random: https://danluu.com/ftc-google-antitrust/
Ok that's fair, he's a pretty unusual or at least he's a writer that cares a great deal about his writing, he's talked in the past about his writing gets getting passes from people so there's at least a quality bar there
Thanks for clarifying, in this case it might be comparing apples to oranges as I'd be surprised if most people approach they're writing like he does
reply