webxr with Babylonjs, A-frame/Threejs, and Unity

I've been working quite extensively on a webxr side project. Originally it was built with a-frame / threejs. You can take a look at it here at Immersive Idea . Recently I relized I was "fighting the framework" more than I was "getting things done". Originally, I chose a-frame because it was essentially a "no code" (well just html markup) way to build scenes. Additionally it's ECS framework was very well documented and easy to use. In an effort to broaden my perspective I started looking at alternatives (Unity with OpenXr, Babylonjs) as I was struggling to keep the pieces working together. This is my (slightly long) recap of my observations. A-Frame A-frame is is well documented, easy to use, and the community is super friendly and helpful. If I simplly wanted to render scenes in webxr with minimal ability to manipulate the environment, I wouldn't even think twice about using it.... Heck I still use it for quick m

MACH TEN Addendum: for companies wanting to use MACH platforms

The MACH Alliance is a consortium of ISVs and SIs that advocate for a particular approach when building/integrating modern platforms. One gap/misunderstanding I keep bumping into is the intent behind MACH. In general, it's a technosophical approach to how PLATFORMS are build, run, deployed, marketed, not really well suited for large organizations who are simply trying to USE these platforms. Therefor I propose a "MACH TEN" Addendum TEN is an acronym that adds some context to adopting MACH platforms to use in your organization. These are high level recommendations I enccourage folks to take into consideration before jumping under the bandwagon. :p Transparent Pricing and contracts are computable, if special terms are negotiated, that's OK, but I shouldn't have to tell you my budget before you tell me how much you cost How I integrate/use your platform is easy to find, I don't need special training, I can just RTFM and begin using your system

Scaling teams: Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?

Seymore Cray was famously quoted as asking: "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?". While he was referring to the advantage of using a single processor solution over a massively parallel solution (which I happen to think he was wrong about) I'll steal this question to use in another context. Namely, when building teams to around technical solutions, you will almost always get a better solution if you use a limited number of smart, motivated, and experienced technical resources over a large number of folks who are inferior in one or more of those dimensions. In that regard, I think solving technical problems is a lot like plowing a field... it's actually difficult work that cannot be scaled by adding more low power resources. The problem isn't a scaling issue, it's a complexity issue. Controlling two strong ox and focusing their effort is a lot easier than trying to herd 1024 chickens. If you've

Now not to do identity management (read this nintendo) [from 2019]

Identity management is hard Just so everyone understands, I get this...having worked with connected devices and multiple phones/consoles/cars/headsets/speakers all cross linked to other devices and other accounts...I get it's HARD to maintain and/or associate the correct PERSON with the correct DEVICE with the correct ACCOUNT (note, those are all different things...I can have multiple bank accounts, accessible from multiple devices, and multiple people could share my account and/or device, but who can do what from what is difficult. Add kids and games and shit to the mix I'm not necessarily saying nintendo has done a poor job (no...scratch that...I'm saying they have)... what I'm really saying is that they have a particular demographic that makes identity and device management difficult...namely KIDS. Now, before all the single parents with one kid who had a nintendo DS once who claim this shit is super simple...and before the folks who can only afford for their

Composable Software Architecture

Toying with the concept of "Composable Architecture" I'm struck by how many folks get lost on the technology and staring at "how do other people do it?" instead of pivoting to think about "how might this help my business?". Time and time again I roll onto a client that is talking about microservices, API first design, Headless solutions, Cloud Native platforms, but have no idea why any of this might help thier business. Routinely I head "well this is how [netflix, amazon, fill in some other business name] does it, so we're going to replicate their success by doing what they do. Why this is flawed The logic behind this thinking is deeply flawed because it's presupposing that the technology architecture by itself makes the business successful. This is, in fact, backwards. Netflix didn't start with a microservices architecture, they started with (and appropriately so) a monolithic architecture. Why? Because their business

ChatGPT and generative AI will not eliminate programmers

Think of ChatGPT as REALLY advanced Autocorrect Autocorrect has been around since about 1993 . If you're wondering if ChatGPT is gunning for your job, think about all the jobs autocorrect has eliminated... go ahead, ask ChatGPT, Google it, I'll wait. I don't know either, but the short answer is, "Yes, autocorrect may have reduced the number of people needed to proofread a manuscript, or reduced the amount of time you need to double or triple check text before hitting 'send', but realistically it has simply made writing more efficient". ChatGPT is no different I heard the hype about how ChatGPT will eliminate programming jobs in 5 years 10 years someday and thought, "well yeah, the same way that the Model-T evendually eliminated ferrier jobs when it was released in 1908". In a way, there's some truth the same way that java or ruby eliminated a lot of the boilerplate and drudgery Fortran or COBOL (or assembly) programming had

A Practical Application of Machine Learning

I've got too many concurrent meetings and overlapping initiatives that I generally need to keep track of I'm sure anyone in any sort of leadership position understands this completely. Sure, we delegate responsibility, but often (especially if you have a heavily matrixed organization) it's impossible to know "which meeting should I attend" or have the individual teams even know "hey I should consult a particular individual about this". To me, this seems like a ripe area to apply deep learning ( or even traditional machine learning ). Currently there are a few ways I see people try to solve this: Delegate responsiblity and trust that "everyone knows what they need do" Micromanage and try to attend every meeting in person Overinvite God+Dog to every meeting and "hope" the right people know to show up These all have a variety of "difficult" problems. Most notably, the amount of information