I get your point you are being pragmatic, but the reason why I sometimes behave exactly in the way, that you just criticized are those very same product owners.
Example: I have a talk with the PO where we agreed on certain features and certain things that do NOT have to work. Often times when I make decisions during development that rest on the asumption that these certain things dont have to work I later on get told to incorporate them anyways. So I have lost a lot of trust in POs or anyone that is not a developer that tells me how a piece of software is supposed to function.
Example 2: I am currently dealing in my department with a case where a Product Manager talked to a Product Owner and they contractually aggreed with a customer to deliver one of our internal development tools, that are absolutely not ready for production or were ever meant for any customer.
Yes I will be "hyper-autistic" about my code because sometimes I do not have a choice.
A thing I have never undestood with the whole "lets build colonies/civiliazation on mars" plans is the following mabye someone here with more expertise can chime in:
Mars is a planet that is VERY hostile towards (human) life at the moment.
As far as I know we do not even have the remote technical capabilites to do stuff like terraforming to make marss inhabitable. So that means we would have to create closed constructs that protects humans.
Lets assume, that we have the technology to contruct settlements that are capable of sustaining humans up there. Couldnt we just use the same technology to remain on earth no matter how hostile climate change makes it towards humans ?
Even in the worst case scenarios for climate change. Earth will still look like a paradise in comparison to a "good" day on mars.
Im not sure if this is somthing we will ever be able to solve to a satisfactory degree with these top down/automated approaches.
I have been gaming my whole life and I miss the "old" days of having community run server as being the default.
You would go online one day pick a server and play on it in the mode you want (For context: I am talking about Counter Strike:Source). Over time you would get into talking with the regulars on the server and you form some bonds.
And if someone does something the majority does not like the can be vote kicked/banned. We took care of cheaters/flamers/grievers that way. An admin on the server can still revoke the ban if the banned person explains why it was unjustified.
No it wasnt streamlined, and it was sometimes unfair, and establishing global leaderboards were difficult (see ESL company).
But you had community involvment and soooooo much content (game mods and skins; all for free btw.) and it felt good to be part of it.
> Moreso even, since they actually have a great technical grasp of what people do, as opposed to the cursory overview ("executive glance") that CEOs these days tend to operate by
I think its still not clear if the AI has anything surmounting to a "grasp" on anything. And given the errors AI (specifically the LLMs everyone is always talking about) having an AI as your CEO still feels more akin to a Monte Carlo Simulation.
At the moment I think AI is a more useable as a great complement for your run of the mill CEO. As its able to give a human with critical thinking ability useable insight into the work theire employees are doing.
I started using paperless a few weeks ago and thus far i really like it. However i have a cuse case, of which i am not sure if there is a way to solve it using paperless.
That is having something akin to an ongoing chat/thread that you have with a corespondent.
If I want something done by a third party i.e. my bank ill send them a mail or setup a meeting with a representative. This creates documents, that i want to add to paperless. Over the course of the next weeks additional documents will be created that outline the "progress" of the topic. I want all of the documents for this single issue im trying to solve to be kinda linked together, so that i always know the current progress and where it all started.
Does anyone here found a good way to solve this issue or is there even a built in function from paperless that i did not see ?
Im not well versed in game programming, however I have some knowledge on how to properly structure your software architecture in other domains.
In regards to third party dependencies I agree with what Uncle Bob says, which is to keep them as far away from your stuff as possible. Only introduce a hard dependency if you have to. In my current project I have been doing that and I enjoy the flexibility that this gives me.
For example I can exchange the DI framework for the whole project in a matter of days if need be.
Which leads me to my question with the Unity debacle.
Is it not possible in game development to also structure your architecture that way ?
Is the extra work not justified if you have deadlines ?
Or is there just a lack of common interfaces that can serve as proper abstraction ?
I am really interested if someone with more insight on game development could shed some light on that.
I can only agree with this comment. I think you instantly run into issues with the points raised in the blogpost if you take a look at stuff like reverse engineering or obfuscation tools.
Say you have a decompiler like ghidra or a dissasembler like x64dbg even. These tools are heavily used by malicious actors AND the people working actively against them.
Would creation and updating of such tools be "ethically neutral" or would we ask the creators of such tools to be held "ethically accountable" for what bad actors do with them ?
That would lead to the age old bad situtation, that you have the bad guys with the tools and the good guys cant do anyting about this as this type of research would be considered ehtically questionable at best.
In a related note: Rust programmers that reviewed the Go malware:" We made a pullrequest to the malware repo where we have rewritten the whole thing in Rust"
Example: I have a talk with the PO where we agreed on certain features and certain things that do NOT have to work. Often times when I make decisions during development that rest on the asumption that these certain things dont have to work I later on get told to incorporate them anyways. So I have lost a lot of trust in POs or anyone that is not a developer that tells me how a piece of software is supposed to function.
Example 2: I am currently dealing in my department with a case where a Product Manager talked to a Product Owner and they contractually aggreed with a customer to deliver one of our internal development tools, that are absolutely not ready for production or were ever meant for any customer.
Yes I will be "hyper-autistic" about my code because sometimes I do not have a choice.