I put Facebook in the same category as Google. They have all of these flashy projects, but at the end of the day they never get beyond serving advertisements. It's their core competency and always will be.
- Amazon made AWS
- Microsoft went from Operating Systems to a cloud company
- Even Google has Waymo, which might develop into a large company by itself
- Apple was founded in 1976. They really weren't the powerhouse that they are until the iPhone came out.
- Netflix went from mailing DVDs to streaming
Of course most pivots don't work and there's selection bias here. BUT, it's not unheard of for business models to change. And it certainly helps that Zuck is the original founder and has controlling shares.
Most companies are like that. Look at their core competency and how much room that market has to grow. It's definitely the exception for company to go into a completely different vertical and excel there.
Google and Facebook thrive in a winner-take-all environment. Both companies profit from advertising, just as traditional media outlets did before Google and Facebook captured all the ad revenue.
There used to be some accountability in the media-advertising model, but that is largely gone in the era of slop, targeted propaganda and automated rage bait.
Considering that software is entirely artificial, I would argue that disciplines in the physical sciences are likely much more difficult when it comes to breaking new ground or discovering novel technologies and solutions to longstanding problems.
Just think about how little progress has been made in solving complex issues like climate change, curing diseases or securing sustainable food supplies. These are incredibly challenging, real-world problems.
In contrast, software engineering often comes down to rearranging data—it’s powerful, but not always as fundamentally complex as tackling the physical world's hardest issues.
Technologically speaking, climate change, world hunger, poverty, peace, etc are all solved problems already. Unfortunately these aren't technical problems. They are social, political, and economic in nature.
The world has had the means to globally end poverty and hunger for decades, but we haven't. We know exactly and quantitatively what is needed to meet climate goals, but we won't do it. Groups of people who have been murdering each other for generations could choose to stop tomorrow and live in peace forever after, but they refuse. These are as far from technological problems as one can get.
Agree that physical sciences, on one aspect, are inherently more difficult, Especially in research, the problems are more difficult to solve because they are limited by the physical world.
But also think that is what makes dev work so difficult, because our "build times" are so short. Because we aren't limited by the real world, we can build our entire system often in seconds and then test them, which allows us to move fast and generate enormous amounts of complexity. While with physical sciences, during an experiment, the "build time" for their tests is typically much slower, often taking hours or days, so they can only deal with a limited number of variables and information at once.
Also think that is what makes software engineers often good at working in other technical domains, we have a lot techniques and hands on experience in dealing with large complex systems, much of which carries over to non-software problems...
(... but my saying this is admittedly half theoretical, because personally, haven't actually applied this to an actual science field, only to things like small construction projects and to the field of music theory, and yeah, super helpful)
But when I was 7 or 8 playing Kings Quest II was amazing to me. You walk around, and go anyplace you want, you could even swim if you type in swim, pure joy. I think this kind of freedom is the appeal to kids.
I like the idea of autonomy and fulfillment. That said, the values expressed here seem to contradict the reliance on cheap flights and promotion of cruise tourism, both heavily petroleum-dependent and environmentally unsustainable industries.
I’m curious how this fits into the broader framework of doing meaningful values-driven work.
It's an interesting question, should you factor other people's consumption into your own environmental impact? I suppose you are enabling it although I doubt it would have any impact on the cruise industry if he shut up shop, clients would just select another agency to book through.
“Some information will always be best conveyed in a straightforward bar or line chart, particularly for audiences that don’t have time to engage deeply"
I think "specialize in something" is terrible advice for a junior but great advice for people with 10+ years experience.
If you're an ambitious junior I do think it's best to job hop as much as you can within reason, like every 6-18 months. Partly due to salary increases, yes, but even more importantly, you learn from having experiences at different companies. No two companies are alike, and working your whole career at one company, even if it's an ostensibly good one i.e. FAANG, limits your exposure. I've seen lifelong FAANG coders who tried to join a smaller startup/scale-up and fall flat because they couldn't adjust. Obviously, job hopping is much harder in the current market, but places are hiring, so it's still worth trying.
For seniors though, eventually the value you provide as "just" a senior developer caps out. A software developer with 10 years experience provides a lot of value over a developer of 1-2 years of experience that justifies a significant difference in pay, but does a 20 YoE dev provide a lot more than 10 YoE? In a general "senior developer" role, I don't think so. For specialized roles, though, you can have a lot more influence, provide a lot more value, and yes, command a better salary. Unless you move into tech management, specialization is how you can keep progressing once you've acquired the requisite technical chops.
oof 6-18 months as a hopper? It are really shitty jobs in my experience if that's the max you can stay somewhere before not learning new stuff.
I'd say that just leave once you are too settled and are just performing tricks. That can be 6 months as you say but also 5 years. Also, never be the smartest guy in the room.
context is everything… I compare generalist vs. “specialize in something” similar to using diversification while investing (index funds) vs. stacking your chips into few things.
no WEALTHY person is all that diversified (e.g. warren buffet) but of you course there are plenty RICH people who are. specialization is high risk, high reward (e.g. have a dear friend making insane money as cobol coder for decades now who couldn’t write a hello world program in any other language) while generalist is safer route but won’t get you wealthy, just rich (which isn’t too bad :) )
Hasn't changed much since 1986, either. Speaking of Sega games set in Japan, the Yakuza games do a good job at this as well, at least for Kabukicho and Dotonbori. I even knew to get crabs at Kani Doraku because of the games! It's like virtual tourism in some ways...
Also playing through on Steam Deck. Steam QTE problems really haven't hindered my enjoyment at all. Kind of shocking how well it's aged overall and how different it is playing through as an adult.
I am waaay better at driving that forklift 20+ years later. The foreman loves me now.
I replayed Shenmue on my Deck about a year ago and I had the same QTE problems. The solution was to download a custom, community-made control scheme from the Steam workshop.
A friend of mine through sheer luck happened to be able to take a two month trip to Yokosuka nearly all expenses paid. She spent the first week or so just plotting out the map of Shenmue and the local map to see how much was rearranged.
The town is definitely Different but recognizable in a lot of ways. Lots of small landmarks that were gently adjusted or changed to make it simpler
Athens being its own special hell, looking across the city from Lykovounia and seeing everything in the city at the same ~5 storey level of dark concrete.
> Is it typical for Japanese towns to have all the electricity wiring above ground?
Yes
> Is it on purpose
Yes? Electrical wiring is built deliberately, of course it's on purpose. Where else would you put it, and why? You're implying it's somehow normal to bury it? That sounds like it would be expensive, both to build and to maintain.
> You're implying it's somehow normal to bury it? That sounds like it would be expensive, both to build and to maintain.
It is in my neck of the woods (the Netherlands) too, the only places you see overground electricity is high tension lines outside of towns. Here's a random suburb I just picked randomly, looks like it was built in the 80's: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7DeZiTyKuB4DZKdG8. Or else Amsterdam, which is much older: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FWm6vYgbV5h2CkZu5.
I'd argue (based purely on gut feeling and handwaving) that having it out in the open is more expensive and dangerous; weathering, wind, trees, cars crashing into it, people climbing up into it, birds, etc.
Anyway, your comment sounds like US defaultism, be wary of that.
Wait, maybe I got that the wrong way around. We put long-distance cables in the air because the soil is so soft and thus mobile, and underground cables would break. Either one ;P
>Anyway, your comment sounds like US defaultism, be wary of that.
i'm a US citizen that is surrounded in underground electrical networks; i'm not sure there is really a 'US defaultist' stance on whether or not one prefers above or underground wiring.
I'm not sure about your location, but around here (Austria) it is indeed much more common to have electrical wiring that runs through the ground than above air. The only place where you see wiring above ground is usually out in the rural areas.
https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/Shuttle-related...
reply