JohnCarmack's comments

I can certainly see a lot of parallels with Oculus / Facebook.

Perhaps unusually, I actually wanted FB to impress itself more strongly on Oculus post acquisition because, frankly, Oculus was a bit of a mess. Instead, Oculus was given an enormous amount of freedom for many years.

Personally, nobody ever told me what to do, even though I was willing to "shut up and soldier" if necessary -- they bought that capability! Conversely, I couldn't tell anyone what to do from my position; the important shots were always called when I wasn't around. Some of that was on me for not being willing to relocate to HQ, but a lot of it was built into early Oculus DNA.

I could only lead by example and argument, and the arguments only took on weight after years of evidence accumulated. I could have taken a more traditional management position, but I would have hated it, so that's also on me. The political dynamics never quite aligned with an optimal set of leadership personalities and beliefs where I would have had the best leverage, but there was progress, and I am reasonably happy and effective as a part time consultant today, seven years later.

Talking about "entitled workers" almost certainly derails the conversation. Perhaps a less charged framing that still captures some of the matter is the mixing of people who Really Care about their work with the Just A Job crowd. The wealth of the mega corps does allow most goals to be accomplished, at great expense, with Just A Job workers, but people that have experienced being embedded with Really Care workers are going to be appalled at the relative effectiveness.

The communication culture does tend a bit passive-aggressive for my taste, but I can see why it evolves that way in large organizations. I've only been officially dinged by HR once for insensitive language in a post, but a few people have reached out privately with some gentle suggestions about better communication.

All in all, not a perfect fairy tale outcome, but I still consider taking the acquisition offer as the correct thing for the company in hindsight.

My primary concern is for immersive VR media on our Go and Quest platforms, which use Snapdragon 821 and 835 SoC, respectively. The 821 doesn’t support 10 bit on anything, and the 835 only supports it on h265. Software decoding a 4k60 video on mobile isn’t an option, and you can see every bit transition with dark adapted eyes in a vr headset, so getting full 8 bit range is pretty valuable.

I was prepared to blend the edges, but it turned out not to be necessary. If the compression ration was increased enough that there were lots of artifacts in the low res version it might be more important.

I was originally going to put it into an mp4 file with the base stored first, so normal video players could at least play the low res version, but the Android MediaExtractor fails when presented with more than 10 tracks, so I just rolled my own trivial container file.

Peak bitrate for Henry is around 40 Mbps, so it wouldn't stream for most people. With some rearrangement of the file so each strip has a full gop continuous, instead of time interleaving all 11, the bitrate wold be cut in half, but it would still be a lot of fairly small requests, so it would call for pipelined HTTP2.

I just tried, and while it does decode a 6kx3k 60 fps video, which is very admirable, it doesn't hold 60 fps while doing it. There are probably encoding options to minimize work on the decoder that could let you push it a bit more. MediaExtractor seems to be arbitrarily limited to a lower resolution, but that can be bypassed.

Need some form of RGB+D for that. I have a player for that, and sometimes it looks fantastic, but the silhouette edge artifacts can sometimes look really bad. Considering some ways of "relaxing detail around the edges".

In the center of the lenses, the circumference resolution is a bit over 5120, but definitely less than 5760. Even at 5120, it is a bit overkill (and potentially aliasing) at the edges: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/975198157838499840

You are off by a factor of 2 in your pixel calculation, because 5k x 5k is for a stereo pair of spheres. Equirect projections waste a fair amount, but compared to the 300% miss to get to 60 fps stereo, it isn't dominant.

No, Exynos has the same block limit as the snapdragon chips -- 4k60. The difference is that Exynos doesn't have the same 4096 maximum dimension limit, so it can do 5120x2560 (monoscopic) at 30 fps, while snapdragon can only decode 4096x2560 at 30 fps. The view dependent player is about playing 5120x5120 (stereo) at 60 fps.

Zuck is very courteous and open to other people's perspectives. Gates was sharp and no-nonsense when I had a meeting with him. I haven't met Bezos.

Years ago, I felt burned when I wrote several articles for #AltDevBlogADay, and they vanished. I have much more confidence that what I write on FB won't vanish. I agree it isn't a great platform for writing, but I only write public long-form things a few times year, so I don't feel like going to another platform for it.

I am aware that my presentations aren't optimal for communicating targeted information, and it does weigh on me more and more as the years go by.

So far, I haven't been able to justify to myself the time required to do a really professional job, so I just show up and talk for a few hours. I like to think there is some value in the spontaneity and unscripted nature, but I don't kid myself about it being the most effective way to communicate important information.

I'm taking some baby steps -- I at least made a rough outline to guide my talking at last year's Oculus Connect instead of being in full ramble mode.

Following up on the links you gave me on Twitter.

These two fall into the awful pop-sci writing category:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-... “And it seems that more productive—and, consequently, better-paid—workers put in less time at the office” “So maybe we should be more self-critical about how much we work. Working less may make us more productive.”

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3841/Prod... This points out that the average worker in Greece works more hours than the average worker in Germany.

These are clearly confusing correlation with causation, and I doubt very much that any of the actual researchers involved, as opposed to op-ed writers, would even imply that if only the workers in Greece would ease up a bit, they would get the productivity of Germany. Would you make that statement?

This one covers a lot of actual research, but mostly on the relationship between overtime and worker health and safety: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-143/pdfs/2004-143.pdf

I don’t find much to argue with here. I don’t dispute the premise that working very long hours can have a health impact in some cases.

It was interesting to see the clear step function in the leading graph of average annual work hours by country with the US at ~1850 as the highest of the mostly-western countries, but Thailand, Hong Kong, and South Korea in a distinctly different class, topping out at ~2450 for South Korea. That made me smile, because one of the Samsung people we work with referred to us at the Oculus Dallas office as “honorary Koreans” because of how hard we work. I do note that the chart in the Economist link with more recent data has them still at the top, but down to ~2100 hours in 2012.

A couple interesting (unrelated) counterpoints from the studies:

Sokejima and Kagamimori [1998] observed a U-shaped relationship: as compared with 7 to 9 hours of work per day, higher risk (for cardiovascular problems) was associated with both shorter hours (less than 7 hours a day) and longer hours (more than 11 hours a day)

Nakanishi et al. [2001b], however, published the opposite results: white collar workers reporting 10 or more hours of work per day had a lower risk for developing hypertension when compared with workers reporting less than 8 hours of work per day

There are some small bits directly discussing performance:

3.2d Extended Work Shifts and Performance Two laboratory studies reported deterioration in performance with extended shifts. In contrast, four field studies reported no differences in their performance measures during extended shifts.

3.4b Very Long Shifts and Performance A study in Ireland by Leonard et al. [1998] reported declines in two tests of alertness and concentration in medical residents who had worked 32-hour on-call shifts. They reported no significant declines in a test of psychomotor performance or a test of memory. A New Zealand survey of anesthesiologists linked long working hours to self-reported clinical errors [Gander et al. 2000].

I glanced at the other links, and they look potentially interesting, but non-responsive as far as giving actual data showing that working more than 40 hours a week makes you less productive.

Perhaps there is confusion about my position, so let me clarify:

Average productivity per hour will decline with extended work. The highest average hourly productivity could be with shifts as short as six hours for many people; I have no particular thoughts on this, as I have never had reason to care to optimize it. An assembly line job that is embarrassingly parallel with minimal communication overhead may well be better served to have shorter shifts and more workers.

Total net productivity per worker, discounting for any increases in errors and negative side effects, continues increasing well past 40 hours per week. There are a great many tasks where inefficiency grows significantly with additional workers involved; the Mythical Man Month problem is real. In cases like these, you are better off with a smaller team of harder working people, even if their productivity-per-hour is somewhat lower.

This is critical: it isn’t necessary to maintain performance on an extended shift to still contribute value. Productivity per hour can deteriorate, even precipitously, and still be non-negative. Only when you are so broken down that even when you come back the following day your productivity per hour is significantly impaired, do you open up the possibility of actually reducing your net output.

There are cases where the consequences of an increased error rate can be a dominant factor -- airline pilots and nuclear plant operators come to mind. I had to work under FAA mandated crew rest guidelines while operating the Armadillo Aerospace rockets, and I made no complaints.

I believe most research that people glance at and see “declines in productivity with longer hours” are talking about declines in productivity-per-hour, and people jump to the incorrect conclusion that you can get just as much done in less time.

You called my post “so wrong, and so potentially destructive”, which leads me to believe that you hold an ideological position that the world would be better if people didn’t work as long. I don’t actually have a particularly strong position there; my point is purely about the effective output of an individual. If we were fighting an existential threat, say an asteroid that would hit the earth in a year, would you really tell everyone involved in the project that they should go home after 35 hours a week, because they are harming the project if they work longer?

I find these “shorter work weeks are just as effective” articles to be nonsense, at least for knowledge workers with some tactical discretion. I can imagine productivity at an assembly line job having a peak such that overworking grinds someone down to the point that they become a liability, but people that claim working nine hours in a day instead of eight gives no (or negative) additional benefit are either being disingenuous or just have terrible work habits. Even in menial jobs, it is sort of insulting – “Hey you, working three jobs to feed your family! Half of the time you are working is actually of negative value so you don’t deserve to be paid for it!”

If you only have seven good hours a day in you, does that mean the rest of the day that you spend with your family, reading, exercising at the gym, or whatever other virtuous activity you would be spending your time on, are all done poorly? No, it just means that focusing on a single thing for an extended period of time is challenging.

Whatever the grand strategy for success is, it gets broken down into lots of smaller tasks. When you hit a wall on one task, you could say “that’s it, I’m done for the day” and head home, or you could switch over to something else that has a different rhythm and get more accomplished. Even when you are clearly not at your peak, there is always plenty to do that doesn’t require your best, and it would actually be a waste to spend your best time on it. You can also “go to the gym” for your work by studying, exploring, and experimenting, spending more hours in service to the goal.

I think most people excited by these articles are confusing not being aligned with their job’s goals with questions of effectiveness. If you don’t want to work, and don’t really care about your work, less hours for the same pay sounds great! If you personally care about what you are doing, you don’t stop at 40 hours a week because you think it is optimal for the work, but rather because you are balancing it against something else that you find equally important. Which is fine.

Given two equally talented people, the one that pursues a goal obsessively, for well over 40 hours a week, is going to achieve more. They might be less happy and healthy, but I’m not even sure about that. Obsession can be rather fulfilling, although probably not across an entire lifetime.

This particular article does touch on a goal that isn’t usually explicitly stated: it would make the world “less unequal” if everyone was prevented from working longer hours. Yes, it would, but I am deeply appalled at the thought of trading away individual freedom of action and additional value in the world for that goal.