mattbuilds

In fact, I think a good heuristic is probably the opposite. The type of person who becomes that rich is probably more willing to scam than the average person.

No one put words in your mouth, they asked you a question. You are the one who made the initial comparison to B2C apps, so it seems like a fair question to me. Your comment implies that its standard and the app isn't doing anything out of the ordinary when I think most people would except an official government app to be held to a higher standard than the average B2C app.

Yea clearly. There is nothing in here at all even worth discussing.

Got any evidence of this or is just vibes based?

That’s a false equivalency, sorry that some of us think companies should actually be responsible for the things they produce.

I’m not saying coding is easy, but when it comes to games it is the easy part. Lots of people can code, very few can make something actually fun. Knowing how to code (or how to use an engine/blueprints/visual scripting) is just the start. It’s like making films. Everyone can record some videos on their phone, but it takes much more than that to make something people want to watch.

I’m sorry but the difficult part of making games isn’t the coding, it is making something that is appealing and enjoyable to play. An LLM isn’t going to help with that at all. How is it going to know if something is fun? That’s the real work.

Also the idea that a dev who could making a game in 24 hour would create something professional and polished in 3 days is a joke. The answer to “where are all the games” is simple: LLMs don’t actually make a huge impact on making a real game.

I personally don't dismiss or advocate for AI/LLMs, I just take what I actually see happening, which doesn't appear revolutionary to me. I've spent some time trying to integrate it into my workflow and I see some use cases here and there but overall it just hasn't made a huge impact for me personally. Maybe it's a skill issue but I have always been pretty effective as a dev and what it solves has never been the difficult or time consuming part of creating software. Of course I could be wrong and it will change everything, but I want to actually see some evidence of that before declaring this the most impactful technology in the last 100 years. I personally just feel like LLMs make the easy stuff easier, the medium stuff slightly more difficult and the hard stuff impossible. But I personally feel that way about a lot of technology that comes along though, so it could just be I'm missing the mark.

True but if you are building it for yourself then you will still have something useful in the end. Chances are that you also probably enjoyed or took satisfaction in the process of building it. Also, if it is truly a passion project and not just attempt to make money, it’s probably more interesting than most of the stuff shared.

Got any evidence on that or is it just “vibes”? I have my doubts that AI tools are helping good programmers much at all, forget about “running circles” around others.

According to your logic, a CEO should attempt to destabilize and influence the government's responsibility so they can maximize shareholder value. And guess what, that is exactly what happens in reality. You can't just simplify reality into rules like this because it leads to people using those rules as an excuse to skirt responsibility and make actual difficult decisions.

That is not a moral obligation, it is in fact the opposite. It is a lie that people tell themselves and the world to allow themselves to make immoral decisions for their own benefit.

I’m not saying running a company is easy and I know that many gray areas exist in the decision making. I do think companies can exist, profit, and be a net good for the world. However, we need to remove the notion that the duty to shareholder profits is a moral duty. It’s a cowards way out of having to make actual difficult choices. It’s one of those things that sounds great exactly because it allows you do horrible things with no responsibility. It creates a system where you offload the effort and weight of your decisions. As long as you’re are acting in the interest of shareholders, you are in the clear. That’s a dangerous concept and the opposite of morality.

Is it really the best approach though if we sink all this capital into it if it can never achieve AGI? It’s wildly expensive and if it doesn’t achieve all the lofty promises, it will be a large waste of resources IMO. I do think LLMs have use cases, but when I look at the current AI hype, the spend doesn’t match up with the returns. I think AI could achieve this, but not with a brute force like approach.

Just to further your point, we are in a thread about Kubrick who did numerous book adaptations including Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, and Clockwork Orange and this is just off the top of my head. Tons of directors adapt novels. Bringing the story to the screen is the skill.

It’s funny because in my many years of development I don’t think I’ve ever encounter a “mess of shell scripts” that was difficult to maintain. They were clear, did their job and if they needed to be replaced it was usually simple and straightforward.

Can’t say the same for whenever the new abstraction of the day comes along. In my experience what the OP is saying is exactly my experience. The abstractions get picked not because they are best but because they reduce liability.

The way I tend to look at it is to solve the problem you have. Don't start with a complicated architecture because "well once we scale, we will need it". That never works and it just adds complexity and increases costs. When you have a large org and the current situation is "too simple", that's when you invest in updating the architecture to meet the current needs.

This also doesn't mean to not be forward thinking. You want the architecture to support growth that will more than likely happen, just keep the expectations in check.

I've had similar things in the past. What was the case for me, and maybe for you is that I was using the idea of "organizing" and "planning" to procrastinate doing actual work. I was working on difficult problems and I felt like if I could just organize everything correctly, the results would fall into place. This isn't how it works though, you need to just do the work.

Organization and tools like that can be helpful for communicating and coordinating across a company, but at the individual level it's usually a waste of time. You don't need them. Remember, the whole point is to get work done. If organizing isn't moving you closer to your goal, it's not doing it's job.

My suggestion is to do what I do now.

One list: TODO.txt.

I put tasks in priority order and just work through them. Sometimes I write a note or an idea at the bottom, but that's it. No over complication. It only has what I need to get the next thing done and keep moving through my tasks.

The reason is growth. A sysadmin will make sure the lights stay on and the place doesn’t burn down, but they aren’t creating a new revenue stream. And when all these companies need to grow forever, they need to be creating new things, which developers do and sysadmins don’t.

Which is funny, because they aren’t very good at it.

I mean he’s a mouthpiece for Thiel, not really that surprising. His livelihood depends on viewing the world in a very specific way.

Perfectly said, that was the exact point I was trying to make. I've seen so many bad decisions made in the name of "future proofing". The the future comes and you are fighting those decisions. I wonder if people switch jobs and projects so often they don't get to see the results of all that future proofing.

I really disagree with the pros listed on over-engineering, specifically "future-proofing" and "reusability". I doubt you can accurately predict the future and whatever assumptions you make will likely be wrong in some way. Then you are stuck having to solve the problem that you created by trying to predict. As for reusabilty, it's similar. Start with solving what you have to, then abstract as you see it fit. Again, don't try to predict. Be thoughtful and really understand what is actually happening in your system. Don't try to follow some pattern you read online because it seems like a good fit.

Realistically you should engineer for the problem you have or can reasonably expect you are going to have pretty soon. You can solve future problems in the future. I'm also not saying to write horrible unmaintainable code, but don't try to abstract away complexity you don't actually have yet. Abstractions and where to separate things should become apparent as you build the system, but it's really hard to know them until you are actually using it and see it come together.

Obviously we can’t prove this, but my instincts are that we don’t do things with probabilistic decision paths. Not very scientific of me, but I just don’t buy that’s how we make decisions.

I wish we could stay away from generalities. There is no one size fits all answer to questions like "should I take funding?". The answer depends on your goals and where you are competing.

If what you are trying to do is capital intensive, has tons of competition and generally will need the scale in order to compete/turn a profit, you should probably take VC funding.

If you want full control over your product or are operating in a niche and think the explosive growth necessary will hinder you, you have different priorities. You might not be trying to make the next "big thing" and in this case probably don't take funding. In fact, you probably don't want VC funding because your goals don't align with theirs.

Like most difficult questions, the answer is: it depends.

If you are taking hundred of millions in funding, sure you need to capture the market of "all the people". If you build something that's just for a certain group of people, you can compete by just having a better product that specifically addresses those users needs.

Look at HN, I know, run by a VC and it's not without some issues, but it is still better than most forums and social media to me specifically because of what it doesn't try to do. It has a specific goal and doesn't feel the need to try and extend beyond it.

My ideal is that in the future we will more communities like this, where it's built to address a group of users needs and not try and expand beyond it. Where the content and information is shaped in a form to meet the specific needs of the group using it and not generalized into the lowest common denominator so ad sales can go up. It feels unlikely at this point, but I still have hope.

Yea I actually think it's similar to something that happens with my 2 year-old. He thinks putting shoes on means we go outside. So when he wants to go outside, rather than saying "outside", he goes and gets his shoes.

The internet' scale allows great products to grow exponentially. A bunch of great software, sites, and tools took off and grew at a rapid rate. But we took the wrong lesson from this and thought "rapid growth=great product". So VCs have put growth above everything else, and are hoping they can figure out a product after, like a 2 year-old thinking that putting on his shoes will mean he gets to go outside.

I think the VC world's obsession with growth has tainted how we (me included) view things, especially stuff like social media. There is a fixation with growing and doing it rapidly that I believe is harmful. I don't know when this switch flipped, but I've felt it gradually building up over time.

Things can just be what they are, grow naturally and then die naturally. I suspect that injecting cash and attempting to achieve an unnatural growth is probably not good for both the quality of the product and the long term stability of it.

I would love to see more niche things grow organically and fill a role for some people, at some time and not try to be everything for everyone. Because when that's the case, does anyone really enjoy it?

Any chance you could go a little more in-depth with what you mean? Why are the ideas so bad and what can someone who gets it recognize in them? Just curious.

Thanks for this, it's great. I've never explained it as clearly as these two do, but this has always been my philosophy and what I try to aim for when developing software. I find that a lot of times people opt for easy, thinking that it's simple, but down the road they find out it is actually complex. I wonder if we will every see a real shift to focusing on simplicity and the gains that come from it?

I actually agree with you a good amount. I was never saying that you don't need management, just that first you need quality people. I do think you can have a good team with poor managers that still preforms, but I can't think of any examples of great managers with bad teams that excel.

Well first I would say that a team of quality people wouldn't all run in their own direction. They would know they need to coordinate to achieve a goal. Quality doesn't just mean being good at programming, it means the whole process of delivering software.

The sports metaphor is starting to break down, but just to have a one more go. Sports is different because the top teams all have top 1000 players in the world. This won't really happen in software. So with software it's more about putting together the right team. One where people enhance the whole, and that's what I think the biggest role of management is about. It's helping coordinate quality people.

The thing I was speaking out against was that you could have a good manager with a good process and not great people. The idea that the process can hide the problems of the team is something I don't believe. It doesn't matter how you organize if thats the case, nothing of real value will get made.

I do like the idea that the total result is a multiplayer of the two values. I just think the team quality is a little more of a multiplier than the other :)