Changing the source instead of adding an edit would make previous comments that were asking about the unclear part not make sense anymore.
The 5% figure is kinda shocking, that’s why he put a number. And it’s I think why people appreciate him, because he gets specific instead if writing a vague statement like “pain of seeing an application waste resources”.
I really don’t understand how it can be unclear that 5% is bad.
The thing that was actually unclear was people not understanding it was analogy for organizational effectiveness.
> And it’s I think why people appreciate him, because he gets specific
But he is not specific. As you write the specific problem he has is with the efficiency of the organisation. He is not quitting Meta because someone shipped a build with 5% GPU utilisation. The gpu utilisation thing is an example and the number is pulled out of thin air. And as an example it doesn't do a good job. It confuses people instead of illuminating what he is trying to say.
> I really don’t understand how it can be unclear that 5% is bad.
Because it is not bad? I'm writing here this comment, and my browser is barely utilising a single percentage of my GPU. Should the browser's developers rewrite their code to burn more GPU? Obviously not.
But there is a bigger problem with the analogy. It tries to explain something quite simple (Carmack sees the organisation is inefficient. He has a dislike to inefficiency because his job is to make computers more efficient.) And to illustrate this simple concept he brings in the vocabulary of a specialist field. (performance optimisation, and graphics programming) Thus reducing the audience who can understand his point for no good reason whatsoever.
> The thing that was actually unclear was people not understanding it was analogy for organizational effectiveness.
Yes. And it is the direct result of his writing being confusing.
The 5% figure is kinda shocking, that’s why he put a number. And it’s I think why people appreciate him, because he gets specific instead if writing a vague statement like “pain of seeing an application waste resources”.
I really don’t understand how it can be unclear that 5% is bad.
The thing that was actually unclear was people not understanding it was analogy for organizational effectiveness.