I think the point would be that you don't eliminate the stuff you don't like permanently, that you need to "actively work" against them, and they will persist in changing their side so you've got to indefinitely continue active work to keep your personal device to your liking.
There's a nearly 20 year lead up to the current CUDA dominance including working with developers, but on the gaming side there's also a parallel with the dominance of nvidia's gaming tech versus how much ATi/AMD were able to get their tech to stick. Nv invested not just in capable hardware then throw it over the fence to leave developers to figure out, but software solutions easily integrated by others and engineer support to show off their hardware in the best light.
More directly on topic, I can't help thinking this is also a question of "what have you done for me lately" versus "what are you going to do for me tomorrow". It's hard to doubt he and the company as a whole have executed a vision and reaped the rewards, but have they been planning and doing the groundwork for another act.
> planning and doing the groundwork for another act.
A nontrivial part of which is pumping up an infrastructure bubble with NVIDIA money. It wouldn't shock me if that very aggressive and increasingly questioned strategy plays a role in whatever happens to Jensen.
Another factor is the CPU behaviour. The CPU involved in the article is intel, but IIRC for AMD Zen4 (at least for desktop) they made them boost up to a relatively high but well within spec temperature, rather than leaving performance on the table that only tweakers will see. The better your cooling capability the more you'll get but it caused a few people to freak out a little. Aspects like that are why I reserve the noisy part of my fan curve for when temperatures are going beyond normal.
Wouldn't messages syncing to all devices, which might be a concern if you wanted the detection to be covert and only get alerts on a devices you can trust to be on your person? i.e. the 'unrecognized person' won't see a new email coming in to tell them they've been spotted and prompt then to cover their tracks.
To this point, the app holds its own desktop notification until it recognizes your face again, and only then tells you who came by. Remote alerts are instant.
That's a good point, and a use case scenario, I hadn't considered. Email could be sent through third-party services, without alerting the intruder, but an iMessage would indeed be harder to hide if syncing is enabled.
I think a big difference is that now we have a lot of examples of what certain types of technology is likely to get used for, and how that affects our daily lives.
One thing to remember is how quick it would be to build out maps in that era, big blocks to carve out the space and align/scale a single diffuse texture on each face.
I recall some anecdote from Harvey Smith that he liked to start the day earlier than the rest of the studio, and he could do a 'first draft' of a level before anyone arrived. I believe the example was the 'Ton hotel, which is a small map.
One I'd mention as someone who probably played through too many times, there's a randomizer mode which shuffles a lot to make need to explore/discover the maps again, and avoid just following a well trodden path to proceed.
I'd be interested to know how complex the modelling behind this is for the companies involved, what reasons they think are behind changes and what levers are within their reach to pull (and what's outside their control).
One aspect that springs to mind immediately looking at that timeline is the rise of mobile, it wouldn't have happened immediately at launch (around 2007) but has been a building wave that meant practically everyone has a games device in their pocket. For audiences of certain genres is all they need where they might have contributed to the overall picture of dedicated gaming devices, leaving other gamers and companies to balance the books for other genres that are left.
I think the most practical issue is that we're not talking about companies per se, but individuals. And the time horizon of any given individual tends to be much less than the time horizon of a company. So imagine you're an executive at XBox, and find yourself in charge of their games division. Your performance is going to be measured based on your results over the next quarters where the next few years would be 'long term.' And so your actions are going to be geared towards maximizing returns over that window.
'Shareholder value' is another problem. Shareholders, in general, do not hold shares of companies because they want those companies to succeed, but because they expect returns from those companies. If they can get a 50% return and then have the company die in a fiery blaze, most shareholders would be perfectly fine with that so long as they were reasonably confident that they wouldn't, themselves, get burnt. So you have shareholders with no interest in the long-term similarly aligned with executives who have no interest in the long-run.
There's also probably more technical issues like discounting earnings over time. A penny earned today is generally considered significantly more valuable than a penny earned tomorrow by companies due to inflation, opportunity cost, and other such issues. So even if you think the long-term is relevant, the expected earnings cost would have to be dramatic to make it comparable to the impact of next quarter.
I think a large part of the issue is that the sum total of ME trilogy is a hard act to follow, without aiming to sound hyperbolic it's a very bright light that outshines a lot. Anything trying to be a sequel has a difficult balancing act of being familiar versus being different and bringing new ideas in.
reply