←back to thread

John Carmack's arguments against building a custom XR OS at Meta

(twitter.com)
521 points OlympicMarmoto | 3 comments | 29 Aug 25 16:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.477s | source
Show context
procaryote ◴[30 Aug 25 07:25 UTC] No.45072629[source]▶
The problem when working for Meta is that if you do a good job, you've helped make the world worse... so the real heroes are the people wasting money and reducing efficiency

If you're at all competent, go work somewhere else

replies(12): >>45072688 #>>45072691 #>>45072756 #>>45072763 #>>45072912 #>>45073250 #>>45073254 #>>45073468 #>>45074116 #>>45074348 #>>45074596 #>>45074737 #
roncesvalles ◴[30 Aug 25 08:22 UTC] No.45072912[source]▶
One of the better "service to humanity" opportunities for software engineers is to join a company like Meta or TikTok and perform awfully for as long as you can.
replies(3): >>45073264 #>>45073914 #>>45074500 #
Hammershaft ◴[30 Aug 25 12:04 UTC] No.45073914[source]▶
I think a better service to humanity is to excel at your job even if you end up at a socially corrosive org like Meta or Tiktok but donate a decent chunk of your paycheck to effective altruist charities that save lives.
replies(2): >>45074015 #>>45074648 #
1. kriops ◴[30 Aug 25 12:23 UTC] No.45074015[source]▶
A better service to humanity yet is taking that money and spending it on whatever is valuable to yourself, thus providing more people with the opportunity to sustainably work for a living. Capitalism and all that.
replies(2): >>45074352 #>>45074554 #
2. ToValueFunfetti ◴[30 Aug 25 13:12 UTC] No.45074352[source]▶
There is no reason to expect "buy stuff you want" to be more charitable than charity. At a glance, the stuff itself obviously takes up a good chunk of the money and much is going to end up in the hands of people who already have plenty.

You emphasize "sustainably", but how is it more sustainable to give 500k/year to capitalism until you don't make that much / retire / die? In either option, that 500k/year is there until it isn't. With charity, you'd help more people but it would be no more or less sustainable.

3. CPLX ◴[30 Aug 25 13:34 UTC] No.45074554[source]▶
The idea that all decisions under capitalism are value-neutral is ludicrous.

By your definition, selling arms to dictators and using the money to buy a yacht and private security qualifies as "service to humanity."