My first thought was why would someone halt their socials? Too much holiday time? Then I realized this was social media :-P. Socials to me are precisely NOT social media. Is this a common language usage now?
Large software projects are an interesting use case because once you get large is precisely when the framework becomes valuable.
A large enterprise project will need security, testing, auth, (AI now too). I'd hate to implement SAML without a library, that would be torture, and likely incompatible with most systems.
While I've often written small self projects from scratch, I wouldn't dream of building a large one that way unless you are sure to have an army of engineers and QA.
As an aside, this is where AI code fails as well. Speed of dev is easy, stability over time and compatibility is hard.
You can also add those non-logic commits to a .git-blame-ignore-revs file, and any client that supports it will ignore those commits when surfacing git blame annotations. I believe GitHub supports this but not sure. I think VSCode does…
They are irreplaceable assets that would probably cost north of a trillion dollars if someone tried to build them today, and the oil refining countries club is pretty exclusive. Wildly shortsighted from a big picture national capacity point of view.
No, all washing machines were centralized in the OpenWash company. In order to do your laundry, you needed a subscription and had to send your clothes to San Francisco and back.
Exactly, it wasn't the case then with washing machines and it's not the case now with AI. Your example is pretty relevant!
Today, anyone can run SOTA open-weights models in the comfort of their home for much less than the price of a ~1929 electric washing machine ($150 then or $2,800 today).
That was something I struggled to understand for AI-2027. They have China nationalize DeepCent so there's only one Chinese lab. I don't understand why OpenBrain doesn't form multiple competing labs because that seems to be what happened IRL before this was written.
Because it's an excuse for a psychiatrist to wank about their political hobbyhorses, not an actual work of any effort, other than cavorting in the right circles. (i.e. we see a your question can also be framed as: "why doesn't the geopolitical fantasy masquerading as a serious whitepaper try to imitate real life, like, at all?"
I suppose that those who stayed in the washing business and competed at a higher level are the ones running their own laundromats; are they the big winners of this technological shift?
Yeah. For understandable reasons that is covered a lot too, but AI 2027 is really about the risk of self-replicating AI. Is an AI virus possible, and could it be easily stopped by humans and our military?
Well, and I think the future of LLMs is not just in the pure LLM, but the agentic ones. LLMs with deterministic tools to ferret out specifics. We're only starting here but the results will be far better than what we do today.
Agentic LLM by itself provides value, to be sure, but they could also be part of learning a causal model. That's how humans do it; by interacting with the world.
As someone who's sat on both sides of the table, getting tickets done is incredibly valuable. I don't really think an engineer is worth their salt if they can't do this. However, there's a transition that needs to happen when they hit mid-level where they need to be able to synthesize what the ticket is asking for and implement the right thing. No ticket or product manager is perfect, and awareness is often times a better driver of performance because certain tickets aren't done or are changed due to an engineer's competence.
From the flip side, management is looking at industry trends that the engineer simply doesn't see. It may be the current market is getting saturated with your product and the company really needs to pivot to remain competitive. No amount of further feature work or bug fixing will "fix" the market position. You have to do something different or you will lose sales. While fixing the existing product may make the existing customer happy, it won't continue to drive new revenue.
The only way to really make the two sides happy is to have a level of trust/communication that is rare. What engineer doesn't like to complain about management that keeps changing their mind? What manager doesn't like to complain about engineers that are out of touch with reality? Given this audience, I would say that if you're an engineer, there's an order to the skills: crush tickets, gain awareness of the product so you can do the "right" stuff, then solve your manager's market problems (not the product's).
I recall my favorite part of opening up a new Nintendo game was poring over the manual. I didn't actually want it for instructions. It was the lore and the pictures and the dreams of what I could do with the game that made it fun.
Now, people are so media saturated that they're begging to remove as much content as possible in order to just get the clearest bit of information. I can't help we've lost something in society when we're not really enjoying or having fun unless we get immediate and overwhelming pleasure triggers.
What era were you doing this in? I love looking at these old manuals but every era was different.
I think the decline is kinda obvious… the manual is an expense, most people don’t want to read it, and it’s better to make the game explain its own story and gameplay. 1980s manuals had walkthroughs and explained the story because that kind of functionality was difficult to put in software. Today, games frequently have catalogs and encyclopedias you can access in-game, extensive cutscenes that give you the story, and tutorials for every important game mechanic.
It’s wild to look at the Final Fantasy II (you know, FF4) manual from 1991. It has half the story laid out with maps of towns and dungeons, followed by tables of the items and abilities in the game. Meanwhile, you look at Xenoblade Chronicles 3 from 2022. XC3 is absurdly complicated by comparison and has a much larger story, but it is playable without a manual because the game explains how to play as you play it. Somewhere in the middle, in the 2000s, you have the middle option—manuals that give you a list of characters in the story and tell you what all the buttons do.
Archive.org is great for these old manuals.
Worth mentioning is how games like Legend of Zelda were not anticipated to be beatable by ordinary players without help (help beyond what the manual provided). Phantasy Star 2 is in a similar category and I think you were expected to have the strategy guide.
Also worth mentioning is games like SimLife, where the manual is a proper software manual. It also has those weird cartoons about a family playing around with a gene splicer.
Not OP, but I had a similar experience growing up in the '90s. StarCraft in '98 is probably the best example; the original manual is the only source with the backstory explaining how the humans in the game left earth in giant colony ships, got lost, and ended up colonizing the koprulu sector. Without that backstory, the game's story - and especially Brood War's story - are pretty hard to follow.
> Today, games frequently have catalogs and encyclopedias you can access in-game, extensive cutscenes that give you the story, and tutorials for every important game mechanic.
I was able to read the StarCraft manual on the bus to school, car rides, waiting rooms. If the info had been locked in the game itself, in some kind of sub-menu, I never would have read through it, because I was playing the game.
> I was able to read the StarCraft manual on the bus to school, car rides, waiting rooms. If the info had been locked in the game itself, in some kind of sub-menu, I never would have read through it, because I was playing the game.
Kind of a fun exercise to think how a modern game would be different. I haven’t played StarCraft II so this is just my take on a modern version of this.
Put some more info into cutscenes and really hammer the important stuff home (repeat it), taking advantage of the higher-quality cutscenes we can make these days. Other info goes in the encyclopedia. Make an encyclopedia mechanic—each entry for a unit is unlocked once you destroy a certain number of those units in-game. Unlocking the entry gives you some slight mechanical advantage, like the ability to see which upgrades the unit has or the exact HP values. Once or twice during the game, design a segment of gameplay that requires you to complete an encyclopedia entry in order to pass.
I’m sure the kids in the 2000s could just play games on the bus.
Manuals served another purpose in the 1980s: pirates rarely copied the manual with the game and so someone who bought the real game could learn how to play it while the pirates had a large collection of games that were no fun because without the manual they spent a lot of time trying different buttons just to see what worked - often they never did figure out the secret moves and so the game wasn't even winnable even though they could make progress and it seemed like they just needed to get better.
And then there was a period in the 1990s when the FMV intro had higher quality graphics than the rest of the game.
These situations just don't exist these days. Although, admittedly, some people do buy game books and lore books because they're well illustrated (illuminated?)
We've "lost something in society" because we don't want to be immersed in lore and pictures and dreams of what we could do while our friends sit patiently around the table waiting for us to look up if we can build a dairy barn in the farm flash step?
This is referencing a rule. I'm not sure I'm arguing against a clear reference, I like those. But I've certainly been at a table where we open the box, the host hasn't read the rules and frankly doesn't want to. I would hope you'd be excited about the board game, enjoy the book that comes with it, and then invite your friends over to play :-)
I've been that friend who was invited over to play with hosts that were really good and knew all the obscure rules. Not very fun when you discover your strategy fails because of some rule you didn't know of that they waited until you were committed to point it out.
> Not very fun when you discover your strategy fails because of some rule you didn't know of that they waited until you were committed to point it out.
At least half the time you get this feeling, they pointed it out with the rest of the rules and you just didn't notice.
Realistically with anything more than the most basic of games I feel as if it's reasonable to expect that the first 1-2 games are just practice because as you say, there will definitely be something that you've missed.
I think you may be romanticizing the past a bit here. I got a Nintendo when it came out too and I never did any of the things you've done. You may have just imagined everyone was behaving in the same way you were, when it's probably just as likely they behaved more like me.
I remember getting Ultima V as a kid and it came with this beautiful cloth map, some little game related physical artifacts, and a big lore book you could read to get the backstory and context. I read that thing cover to cover before embarking on that awesome game. It was really something special. They don’t make games like that anymore. Now it’s “Here, have a half-assed binary, delivered online, full of bugs (because we rushed it out without QA) that’s going to need a zero day patch just to work, and search the web if you want (fan-written) lore and immersion.”
Agreed. We're not romanticizing the past, it's now a business model that the first version of a boardgame is early-beta-qiality as a market exploration tactic, to see whether and how much $ should invest in fixing it.
One example I cited [0] was Asmodee Digital's implementation of Terraforming Mars released in 2018, 2 years already after the physical version of the boardgame became a global hit... yet the digital version had such basic bugs, it wasn't like they couldn't have easily found free (or paid) playtesters to document them. Stupid stuff liked forced delays/ cutscene animations; in particular I heard the mobile interface was unplayable. By all accounts it was several years before it was half-playable. But by then there wasn't much revenue potential left.
It's sad when this happens especially if you're trying to evangelize for a game to your non-hardcore friends, because a bad initial experience can kill the word-of-mouth (like they did with the digital version of Pandemic [1] (delisted in 2022), or things like Essential Phone 1.0, or 'Cyberpunk').
I'd much prefer if studios said "You can buy the beta version now for $14.99, or wait for the general release in 6-12 months for $Y".
I concede this may be true. First time I played D&D, I bought the rulebook and pored over it until I knew the rules and details -- and had a blast. Now, being a DM, no one reads the rules.
It's not the same. Instruction manuals were unambiguous. (SimLife's was really fun from what I remember.) You got one and it said everything it needed to.
D&D (and many other TTRPGs) have become too Judaic for my liking. You can read the Torah cover to cover, but like any religion you'll inevitably be told you don't actually "understand" it unless you also buy and read the Talmud and all these journals and attended these seminars. Literally "Rules Lawyering: The Game." All these add-ons revising canon and adding some crappy fanfic or art just feel like cheap cash grabs. It's just not good enough for what it costs.
Nintendo never sold you add-ons for the instruction manual expanded universe. Subscribing to Nintendo Power might net you cheat codes or a poster or something--bonus content--but they were never integral to understanding the games.
In both religion and TTRPGs every once in a while someone says lets throw away all those supplements and get back to the original. Some of them then add supplements (either their own new ones, or the old ones) back as they realize something they want to change/clarify.
You of course should pick exactly the same stance on the above as I do. But like any true gentleman I never tell you my stance is.
I loved being able to rent a game for weekend from our grocery store’s vhs department. I’d spend the rest of the trip home eagerly reading the guide while my mom shopped and I’d be so hyped to play the game by the time we got home.
It’s a good thing the games were plug and play in the console back then, I wouldn’t have had the patience to install and download a 3GB patch before starting
That mechanic is so creative. I love the gave but it's hard to describe what's so great about it to others without also revealing that brilliant mechanic which is really fun to encounter for the first time without expecting it.
A conversation vaguely pointing toward a key game mechanic that might have something to do with metatextuality but which mustn't be described for fear of spoiling it is a damn good way to get me to buy a game.
(Just purchased. Easy buy vs. wishlist decision since it's currently half-off on Steam)
I don't trust an open source solution by a major player unless it's published with other major players. Otherwise, the perverse incentives are too great.
Changing license terms, aggressive changes to the API to disallow competition, horrendous user experience that requires a support contract. I really don't think there's a limit to what I've seen other companies do. I generally trust libraries that competitors are maintaining jointly since there is an incentive toward not undercutting anyone.
