I think it's even worse than just the bar for competency going up: even for a coding wizard going into the career, it's a lot harder to squeeze through the bottleneck which is getting an entry level position nowadays unless they have some public proof out on the Net of how good they're at coding (say, commits in open source projects, your own public projects, or even Youtube videos about it).

This is something that will negativelly impact perfectly capable young developers who have an introvert personality type (which are most of them in my experience, even in domains such as Hacking) since some of the upsides of Introversion are a greater capacity for really focusing on on things and for detailed analysis - both things that make for the best programmers - and self publicising isn't a part of the required skillset for good developers (though sooner or later the best ones will have to learn some "image management" if they end up in the Corporate world)

I'm a bit torn on this since on one side salesmanship being more of a criteria determining one's chances of getting a break at the start of one's career as a developer is bad news (good coding and good salesmanship tend to be inverselly correlated) but on the other side a junior developer with some experience actually working with other people on real projects with real users (because they contributed to existing open source projects) has already started learning what we have to teach fresh-out-of-Uni developers to make them professionals.

Sound like a variant of the good old saying "pay peanuts, get monkeys" only using a stick and threats instead of payment.

Mind you, it does sound like the kind of think somebody with his kind of personality - narcissistic shameless and dishonest salesman - would think it's a great idea.

At some point in my career I've actually designed mission critical high performance distributed server systems for a living, so I'm well aware of that.

You can still pack thousands of users per server and have very low latency as long as you use the right architecture for it (it's mainly done with in-memory caching and load balancing) when you're accessing gigantic datasets which far exceed the data space of a game where the actual shared data space is miniscule since all clients share a local copy of most of the dataspace - i.e. the game level they're playing in - and even with the most insane anti-cheat logic that checks every piece of data coming in from the user side against a server-side copy of the "game level data space" it's still but a fraction of the shared data space in equivalent situations in the corporate world, plus it tends to be easilly partitionable data (i.e. even in MMORG with a single fully open massive playing space, players only affect limited areas of the entire game space so you don't really need to check the actions of a player against the data of all other players).

Also keep in mind that all the static (never changing or slow changing stuff) like achievements or immutable level configuration can still be served with "normal" latencies.

Further the kind LVL1 ISP that provides network access for companies like Sony servicing millions of users already has more than good enough latency in their normal service and hence Sony needs not pay extra for "low latency".

Anyways, you do make a good and valid point, it's just that IMHO that's the kind of thing that pushes the running costs per-player-month from one dollar cents or less to, at most (and this is likely quite a large overestimation), a dollar per-player-month unless they only have tens of players per-server (which would be insane and they should fire their systems designers if that's the case).

After over 3 decades as a gamer and tech user this is maybe the single most consistent important benefit for any open platform were you can just install Linux.

The rest is nice but this one means that 10 or 20 years from now your hardware might have been repurposed for something else and still be useful and in use whilst a closed platform will just be more junk in a junkyard or sitting in a box of those things you've kept just because you don't like to throw expensive stuff away but will in practice never use again.

They're stupidly cheap to operate per user when you have millions of them, which is how companies like Facebook manage to make a profit from merely showing adverts to users and with no subscription fees.

Remember that Sony gets a cut from games being distributed to their platform, so online fees are just them double dipping for extra profits.

They're stupidly cheap to operate per user when you have millions of them, which is how companies like Facebook manage to make a profit from merely showing adverts to users and with no subscription fees.

I have an Orange PI Pro 5 16GB on a box that smoothly runs a full blown Ubuntu Desktop version and would fit in a pocket though it's maybe a little too thick (from memory the box it's about 3x5x2 cm).

Total cost was about $170.

The board itself would fit a thinner box, but you might have to 3D print one.

Mind you, a N100 Mini-PC that costs the same is even more capable as a Linux Desktop, but it's significantly larger and will definitely not fit a pocket.

You can find cheaper SBCs capable of running a Desktop Ubuntu but in my experience (with a $35 Banana Pi P2-Zero) if you go too far down the price scale Desktop Linux performance stops being smooth, even if the board is a tiny thing.

It was actually quite surprising for me recently when I found out some of these things are perfectly capable Linux Desktops.

In my experience working for almost 3 decades in software development, passive-agressive shit from upper management just causes the best people to leave (as they're the ones who easilly find better jobs) leaving behind mainly a mix of the incompetent and those who never worked anywhere else (who are either already incompetent or will become so, as only ever having worked in just one company is far too narrow professional experience for anything beyond junior/mid level - you need to have seen more than one way of doing things to understand certain higher level concerns and choices in software development).

The one time some manager voiced such an idea, I very overtly in front of everybody offered to make "loop unrolling" software working at the source level (compilers already do it at the Assembly level in some cases for performance) for me and my colleagues to really boost that code line count (while totally screwing maintenability).

Mind you, all devs in that meeting were loudly against measuring performance by code lines, but I like to think that suggestion of mine really hammered down the coup the grace on that "brilliant" idea.

I've worked as a freelancer (specifically as a Contractor) in Software Development for over a decade and more often than not I ended up having to work with some existing code base, having to deal with the design choices, coding style and bugs of somebody else, often multiple somebody elses.

There's nothing quite as "entertaining" as having to deal with 3+ different code and design styles in the same code base because all previous developer thought their own way of doing things was the superior way so just added one more layer of their style (not just coding but, worse, software design) on top of what was already there increasing the mess, rather than work within the existing structure and style and doing some refactoring.

Anyway, in my experience having to read, understand and work with existing code that you yourself did not made is way more time costly and less pleasant than actually doing your stuff from scratch.

Outsourcing killed a lot of the junior and even mid-level career level opportunities in CS and AI seems on track to do the same.

The downside is that going into CS now (and having gone into CS in the last decade or so, especially in English-speaking countries) was basically the career equivalent of just out of the starting line running full speed into a brick wall.

The upside is that for anybody who now is a senior techie things have never been this good because there are significantly fewer people at that level than there is need for such people, since in the last decade or so a lot of people haven't had the chance to progress in their careers to that point.

Whilst personally this benefits me, I'm totally against this shit and what it has done to the kids entering my career.

I have the impression that most people (or maybe it's my faith in Humanity that's at an all time low and it's really just "some people") just want pre-chewed explanations given to them rather than spend time and energy figuring things out themselves - basically baby pap as ideas food rather than cooking their own ideas food out of raw ingredients.

Certainly that would help explain the resurgence of Populist sloganeering and continued popularity of Religion (with it's ever popular simple explanations of "Deity did it" and "it's the will of Deity")

Critical thinking, especially Skepticism, does not make for good Consumers or mindless followers of Political Tribes.

Middle and upper management are like little children - they'll only learn that fire hurts by putting their hand in it.

Good programmers (and I don't mean just at the coding level) make less bugs exactly because they want to avoid bug fixing as much as possible.

They still have to do debugging - and hence have to be good at it - just less often than if they didn't invest any time into figuring out ways of working that reduce the rate of bugs in their work (and, again, this is at more levels than just coding).

I think that misconception of "good coders do not produce bugs" in anchored in the totally wrong idea that it's at all possible to make code without bugs - the way I see it the path to being a "good coder" must go through being good at debugging and just wanting to avoid doing it as much because how how much more time it takes to have to go all the way down to using the debugger to find bugs than doing things like at least some analysis upfront of the program requirements, using proper naming conventions to reduce the likelihood of the kind of bugs that comes from confusing variables and structuring you code so that you don't get lost or don't forget things (especially for code you don't see for months and later come back to having forgotten the logic you were following with it).

I've done some programming without proper debuggers (embedded stuff in shitty shit microcontrollers, shader programming) and it's a total PITA.

The pain in the arse which is debugging is what motivated me to, as my career progressed, improve my coding, improve my software design, improve my systems design, even improved my software development process and standards and eventually that even extended to getting those I worked with to also improving those things as I sometimes ended up having to debug their bugs.

Debugging definitelly makes better techies, IMHO, mainly because of the lengths people will go to in order the avoid having to do it.

It's pretty much the same as AIs do - copy and past random code from Stackoverflow - but they do it automatically.

Well, that's the thing, it's often the case that whilst the client is supposedly doing it for their users, in practice it's not and is doing it for other reasons.

Mind you, I think that is more common when the software is being developed for a client which is basically a Manager in the same company as the users of the software (for example in In-house Development or Consultancy work developing a solution for a company) were in the absence of the very clear pressure vector which is the customers not buying the product (internal end-users are almost never given a choice to use or not that software, though they can at times informally boycot software they think hinders their work and get the project killed) things are often designed for the Manager rather than for the Users.

(Note that this is not necessarily done in a knowing purposeful way: it's just that when it's some external manager providing the requirements to the developers for the software being made for the area that managers overseens - though sometimes it's even more indirect - things tend to be seen from the perspective of said manager not the end-users, hence designed to match how that manager sees things and thinks things work, which is often different from how the actual users see things. This cartoon perfectly illustrates that IMHO - it looks fine for the "manager" whilst looking quite different for the "end-user").

Even is B2C you see that: notice the proliferation of things like Microtransactions in Games, which are hardly the kind of thing gamers - who are the end-users of games - wanted to have but which definitelly the management of the big Publishers wanted.

"Family friendly UI" is "ultra-advanced" stuff for me: remember, before Kodi on a Mini-PC in my living room (and, by the way, I got a remote control for it too) I had been using first generation Media Players with file-browser interfaces to chose files from remote shares on a NAS, so merelly having something with the concept of a media library, tracking of watched status and pretty pictures automatically fetched from the Internet is a giant leap forward ;)

There are downsides to being an old Techie using all sorts of non-mainstream tech since back in the 90s. I'm just happy Kodi solved my problem of having an old Media Player hanging together with duct-tape, spit and prayers.

That said I can see how Kodi having all status (such as watched/not-watched tracking) be per-media rather than per (user + media) isn't really good for families. More broadly the thing doesn't even seem to have the concept of a user.

I haven't tried Jellyfin but people's talk of it doing transcoding (which Kodi doesn't need to do as it simply decodes the video stream and shows it on the video output) leaves me with the idea that it's not quite the same and does things I don't really need.