If hardware cost/availability is an issue, there are a few hardware simulators out there. Wokwi (ESP32 sim) is free for personal open-source use.

Just waiting for another xz utils situation

The horrible names of these things…

o4-mini, not to be confused with 4o-mini

And 4o, not to be confused with 4 (aka 4.0 or v4, but 4V is different)

Also, like… the fact that it has a compiler. It’s like saying C is incompatible with assembly because you can’t yeet a .c file at an assembler.

Yeah, that’s uhh… that’s technically true for very strange and specific definitions of “compatibility”… but it wildly misses the point of TypeScript. Not sure what he was thinking there.

Trusting your own judgement on ‘AI’ is a huge risk

Big agree.

But also: people seem to only focus on the output side of the task of writing code, and forget that the developer also receives input from the codebase in return.

Even if you end up with exactly the same code artifact after completing a work item, you’ll have a better understanding of the codebase without delegating swaths of it to AI. But bosses tend not to consider this.

Tech bros have successfully convinced people that mental states do not exist, or at least do not matter — for laborers, anyway, cuz they’ll happily claim that their superior thoughts are exactly why they deserve to be billionaires.

Code is a liability (not an asset)

Related: Jevons Paradox

Not sure about Apple-mediated payments, but you can usually support the creator more directly and get an ad-free RSS feed that you can plug into the Podcasts app and it Just Works™. Usually ends up being a better deal for the creator, too.

As Cory Doctorow says: code is a liability, not an asset

Keychron is solid, and offers a wide range of sizes so you can balance real estate vs functionality

I was once a fool like you :)

Mike McShaffry’s book “Game Coding Complete” is a good guide to the practical side of using a game engine IRL to get things done.

It’ll give you a good idea of how things should be shaped in order to be useful, and some things you can “skip ahead” to. Off-the-shelf engines have to be extremely general in order to be flexible enough to be useful to many customers, so game devs have to put in the effort to make them more specific. You’ll have to start off by being specific, if you have any chance of actually finishing something.

Eberly’s book “3D Game Engine Architecture” deals with the nuts and bolts, the rigorous academic engineering stuff. It’s pretty solid, but it’s aimed at making a general-purpose engine, which is beyond the scope of a one-person project.

Backing up though… You don’t have any language or library opinions? You might need 5-10 years of experience doing general programming (or game dev) before you can sustainably tackle this, or else you’re likely to paint yourself into a corner.

Edit: Probably the biggest PITA with game engine dev is testing. If you’re not already an expert in setting up test harnesses at multiple levels of detail, you’re gonna find it impossible to keep moving after a few months.

Good luck!

I can tell you that when I use GameHub Lite on my Retroid 5, the stats widget sometimes shows Zink, along with DXVK, DXVK+, and VKD3D

Security guard is one. Had a friend in college that basically got paid 8hrs/night to do 2hrs of actual work and 6hrs of building his portfolio. It can definitely work well for some folks.

Mostly agree.

But I think their advice falls prey to the “only a Sith deals in absolutes” problem, when they start contrasting “concrete advice” vs “generic advice”. They are offering “generic advice” with this post, aren’t they?

They hedge against that hypocrisy by offering some special carve-outs where generic advice is still “allowable”, but Idk. I think this post could’ve stuck to the 60% of the topic that was a slam-dunk instead of trying to take on the entire topic of design principles.

After all, I think you could argue that when experienced designers appear to contradict design principles, it’s because they understand the underlying logic of the principles and are recontextualizing them for this specific problem. That argument prioritizes concreteness but also doesn’t paint design principles as unimportant.

As Picasso or someone once said: first you must learn the rules, and then you must break them.

Nix, but I’d only recommend it if you share my same brand of mental illness

Make computers do stuff for what purpose?

I joke to my family that I just name things for a living. When you take away all the incidental stuff like files and pointers and ports, that’s really all it is. “This sequence of events with these properties is called <this>, and when you ask our system what to do about it, it does this other sequence of events with these properties which we call <this other name>.”

It’s kinda like those ancient stone tablets that are the first example of writing, and they’re just like “Ramses owes Jeremiah 5 chickens” or whatever. It’s just how we manage abstract concepts moving around our civilization. Yeah there’s math involved, but every endpoint is a human being in one way or another.

Yeah…

Human mistakes tend to 1) look like mistakes, and 2) are surrounded by lots of hints that the author had trouble with that section of code.

AI mistakes tend to 1) look like regular code, and 2) look just as confident and effort-ful as the rest of the code.

Tech bosses have well and truly lost it.

Consider that:

• Code is primarily to communicate from human-to-human, and only incidentally for computers to execute
• A codebase that is 30+ years old has an absolute shitload of learnings incorporated into it, much of it very subtle
• Languages are, in fact, different. So some things cannot be directly translated with exactly the same semantics, so devs will need to fully understand the intent and resolve ambiguities
• A million lines per month is a lot of text for someone to successfully interpret and translate without losing any subtleties