For a long time putting them in low power mode killed HDR, but it seems they patched that bug (feature)

Shades of the game of thrones creators telling us our TV settings were at fault when they decided to release an entire episode filmed in the dark?

This is mostly fear-mongering on the part of the big IP holders.

We saw the exact same cycle with mobile distribution of audio and video - Amazon even had to fork Android to add kernel-level DRM before any of the video rights holders would allow Amazon Video on tablets (this is before Google added DRM to android in general).

And now? That DRM was circumvented, and you can torrent pretty much any Amazon video the day after it goes live. But it's inconvenient enough that most people don't, the rights holders still feel all warm and cozy, and nobody really cares.

> Short it then

Just because stock is trading on memes, doesn't mean it can't keep doing so well past your solvency to short it...

> A few ps3 games I've seen had 4GB or more binaries.

Is this because they are embedding assets into the binary? I find it hard to believe anyone was carrying around enough code to fill 4GB in the PS3 era...

I assume so, there were rarely any other files on the disc in this case.

It varied between games, one of the battlefields (3 or bad company 2) was what I was thinking of. It generally improved with later releases.

The 4GB file size was significant, since it meant I couldn't run them from a backup on a fat32 usb drive. There are workarounds for many games nowadays.

> People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary.

Delivering shareholder value happens to be a consistent way to maintain the power and payouts a successful executive demands, but I'm not sure it's the motivation per se.

Delivering good software is so far down the hierarchy of motivations I'm not sure they can even see it from up there

> Framing an agreement between companies to not poach each others top talent as a means to “crush their employees” is very discrediting.

How exactly would you frame major corporations colluding to suppress wages?

> What military action is GitHub involved with.

GitHub has been part of Microsoft for the better part of a decade now, and Microsoft is pretty broadly involved with the military (across a wide swathe of countries)

> Fighting from the inside for the behavior you want to see gives you an outsized influence on the outcomes you want to see

A lot of people say this, while collecting 6-7 figure cheques. I've not seen that much evidence that it is correct - certainly, I might as well have been pissing into the wind, for all the effect my influence had on the direction of various FAANG

If you are just a lower level IC, your influence is small. However if you can climb to higher level 7+ or enter management you will have a lot of control of roadmaps you own. If you're trying to influence organizations you're not in you're also going to have quite limited influence, but participating in dogfooding programs and filing bugs is still more influence than you would have externally.

I do agree that it's not easy even given the correct conditions.

A lot of us expressed our contempt pretty damn openly in FAANG. It didn't seem like a barrier to getting paid

> To the extent they have any control, they try to make their employees happy so they’ll work for less money and not leave.

I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.

> some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers

It means having coworkers who are constantly in competition with you for survival. It's a nightmare.

Yes, and some people are still happier there!

Different people can have wildly different expectations for a work environment, and wildly different tolerances of social discomfort.

> when it means having more talented coworkers

I'm not sure it is really correlated? It causes a lot of the high-performers to jump ship pretty regularly too - the company is perfectly happy replacing an expensive veteran with a college hire

If the net inflow of talented coworkers to the company with churn (including hi-po churn) still exceeds the level of talent you'd get at the company with stagnant workforce levels, then maybe you'd still find it preferable.

High churn doesn't necessarily mean low average talent, especially if the skills you need to be a high-performer are not specific to any one company.