lowbloodsugar

This is the kind of thing I might have written in my youth: "Hey, all these disparate computers and systems, and my generation has this amazing new platform: javascript web views. Maybe I can solve this problem by making a new platform, that runs everywhere!"

Doing this for its own sake is Hacking. It's a fun project and would require a lot of learning through experience.

However, it suffers from the xkxd://Standards problem in the first case, and in the second misses the fact that I prefer macOS while some of my colleagues prefer windows. It is also fundamentally naive. Perhaps arrogance was too strong a word. It might be a lack of experience or might be dunning-kruger, but these tools are far more complex than it appears the author grasps. One comment from HN on the puter project was that it doesn't have any kind of security - it seemed to be as trusting as a 1998 Windows computer.

My main complaint still stands: this was written by someone with little thought about what the user wants. It is clear what the author wants, given previous projects: One giant system that Does Everything. Only the author wants this. Users want specific tools that have been refined and improved by an invested development team with expert domain knowledge.

Comment · 5 days ago

Opportunistic vultures who vibe code products with no mental investment in what customers want, no testing, no thought. This is the antithesis of Hacking; the antithesis of building a product for customers.

Comment · 5 days ago

The arrogance required to think you can vibe code everything. I am all for LLM generated replacements for the rent-seeking garbage that permeates software, but this is not the answer. Tools developed by people who use them are the future. Instead, I guarantee this person has the same mindset as the Adobe management he’s trying to displace: create what looks like a useful tool with minimal effort and rely on scale to beat everyone else.

Comment · 8 days ago

I’ve shipped products I wrote entirely in assembly back in the 90s. I don’t mind that I don’t remember most of it. I am very aware that expertise is a muscle that requires constant training.

I think the benefit is that now I get to choose what I want to focus my limited attention on; from a much broader range of subjects; with expert knowledge on tap. For sure, some of it was just scratching an itch. I didn’t waste much time getting to that point before I could go down another interesting rabbit hole. It’s just much more fun!

Comment · 8 days ago

Calibro 35 is definitely not gridified

- https://calibro35rk.bandcamp.com/music

Comment · 10 days ago

For me it's because I've seen what others do with Claude vs how I iterate with Claude. There's an enormous range in the bound "one human steering". Oh, is that a zen koan? What is the sound of one human steering?

Comment · 12 days ago

> and if you're not careful you will only learn how to prompt, not how the stuff works.

I’ve been coding over four decades and it is clear to me that most programmers don’t know how the stuff works, and not just script kiddies but some PhDs I worked with.

For those who want to know how it works, LLMs are massive enablers. I’ve written so many debugging and inspection tools with an LLM; had a model explain the assembly language produced; had rubber duck conversations with it. I’m having such fun tbh.

Comment · 12 days ago

Jokes on them. You don’t need MBAs any more. You just need the cash or a credit line.

Comment · 12 days ago

Sure. If you get pleasure in fixing really badly broken shite, there’s tons of opportunity for that, but no money in it. Only money in new features, which is why the codebase is what it is. I have, on rare occasion, been the fixit guy called in temporarily to fix another teams work or get it out the door: that was fun. Short lived , but fun.