> They are interested in learning about topics from credible people
Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex?
What do politicans want to learn from Military Industrial complex or AIPAC lobby for example? What's there, that politicians don't know already?
> > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people
> Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning?
> do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC?
> or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex?
Trump is unusually sure of himself. But no man rules alone: There is a massive org under every president trying to run a government. I know for a fact that people two levels of management under Trump (i.e. Trump is their manager's manager) do take meetings with people who lobby on the issue of health care policy and (for and against) military procurement. I would be shocked if people who are for/against working with Isreal are never in a room with anyone who can set policy.
Imagine that it is your job to come up with policy for a bug expensive government program: The VA hospital system, a military procurement program that buys airplanes, the part of the state department focused on MENA, etc. If someone asks to meet, claiming that they did academic/technical work which shows you can get a better result with a policy change, you will take that meeting. Examples:
1. An MD researcher shows you can cut drug costs by switching one medication for another.
2. An engineer has reason to believe current stealth coatings on fighter planes won't work against China's missiles in 5 years.
3. An economist thinks that an ally (Isreal, Korea, etc.) have demographics that will stop them from being able to field an army within 20 years.
You should go into these meetings with skepticism, and there is a 90%-99% chance the person's idea is bad. But if an idea is good/correct/important, and you blew him off, your boss will be angry, and your career will be over.
Most people in government want to solve problems (and get credit for doing so). Most problems governments face have hard tradeoffs that voters don't understand/care about. Voters want unlimited healthcare at no cost to themselves, 100% success thwarting terrorists with no spying on citizens, military supremacy without paying much for weapons, etc. People asked to solve these problems are DESPERATE for new ideas to allow voters to see that they are getting good outcomes. Telling them you have a way around a hard tradeoff is music to their ears.
Thanks for the detailed comment. And I would describe lobbying as making sure when the opportunity arises your solution has a voice in that discussion.
Yes it sucks. But this is a human problem. Not a US gov problem.
> While OOP ideology teaches you to structure the program after the problem it solves
I completely disagree with this characterization. OOP teaches you a synthetic set of concepts (go4) and then asks you to solve problems in terms of that.
And the reason why the canonical bird as a subclass of animal doesn’t work, is it’s extremely difficult to divide the world into strict categories (are you Aristotle). So the solution is to organize virtually rather than around natural traits.
The most natural way to solve a programming problem is a big list of instructions with if/else and goto. It’s very learnable, even for young children.
I responded to that. It’s nonsense which doesn’t work:
> And the reason why the canonical bird as a subclass of animal doesn’t work, is it’s extremely difficult to divide the world into strict categories (are you Aristotle)
What behavior are you going to out in vehicle? Here are a few potential subclasses you’ll need to consider:
The first principles examination is you need an array of structs.
If your goal is to ship a product you would use this proven technique. It’s shipped more AAA and small games than any other.
The ECS is a hobby project which solves problems unrelated to your goal. (Making a cool ECS) And because it was not engineered with the goal of shipping you’re sitting on a pile of unknowns when you try to.
Proven technique is an Appeal to Authority. You have offered no real first principal evidence for your claims. Here's some evidence in favor of flecs:
I find value in its reflection and serialization system, as well as it's pipeline API.
Games require far more than a bunch of arrays. The simulation code itself is dwarfed by the UI, VFX, animation and scene layout code. The APIs in Flecs have a lot of value for these "not the core game" use cases.
Conversely, the amount of boilerplate you have to write to stand something up in Flecs is massive. And the use of macros in Flecs APIs tends to break editor auto complete. And the learning curve is very big. And the output code just looks very different from Orthodox C.
Getting nerd trapped fucking around with ECS is a real risk. The rabbit hole goes deep. But the library itself is valuable, powerful and well done.
This is my honest thoughts on ECS systems derived from first hand experience.
That’s true. But in a business context I’ve found the opposite mindset is helpful. Anything which might be a constrain which is not contrary to your goal is probably a real constraint. Yes in theory you can rebuild X, Y, Z but what can we actually do in this initiative. I’ve taken to even taking social constraints as real and I communicate them to my management in that way.
That’s not my experience. Every decision favors one use case or principle over another. The best design is when you have the vision and confidence to say what’s important for each those decisions and what you’re ok leaving out.
> I can only choose between what is made available to me by the market
The existence of that desire is an untapped market opportunity.
And yes there are ranges of quality in almost every product you can think of from fishing rods, to furniture, to diapers. And theses brands clearly compete with cheaper options and still have strong businesses.
It is until the next brand becomes quality, people trust it, and they start riding on the brand name but skimp on quality for higher margin. There is no reliable signal for quality in any market unless you can get your hands on practically the same product someone else has.
> The existence of that desire is an untapped market opportunity.
Only if you can outcompete the giant mega-conglomerate incumbents.
And you can't. If you start trying to sell in an area, they can drop the prices on their competing products in that area to below cost until you run out of money.
Or they can just buy you for more than you'd ever get in profit, then take advantage of your reputation for quality to sell the same crappy quality stuff they were selling before, with your branding on it, for a markup. They'll make enough from suckers who believe it to more than cover the cost of buying you out before the public catch on and stop being willing to pay the extra.
There is also a demographics angle to this. People who grew up poor and now are middle class tend to favor larger quantities of goods over quality. And this is exacerbated by immigration.
“corporate greed” is a signal to me of low quality commentary. The opening premise of Econ is that consumers want all the goods for free and producers want to give nothing in exchange for as much money as they can.
The problem here is that when the consumers try it they go to actual jail. Meanwhile the producers have been richly rewarded for getting away with their side of it.
So yeah, corporate greed actually has a meaning in this context for people.
reply