HN user
https://rashad.wiki
Great point. Devs have relatively no incentive to be more productive for their orgs, and all the incentive to be more productive on their own personal work. The AI benefit to devs is real, just not for large enterprises IMO outside of automating clerical/mundane work.
A bit of meta: Claude Design -> Claude Code or Codex.
IMO Claude Code almost feels like a hack for getting web-ish products off the ground. It does such a great job of making the UI mockups interactive and providing a great "base" that the agents can use. Once you get that "base" the way you want in Claude Design, export it, then literally just tell your agent "Hey, the exported design project is /at/this/path - read it and implement it". No it's seriously been that simple - either agent can handle it. From there, you can A/B test to see which agent you prefer. The better agent is going to depend on your project and your prompting.
Good luck :)
My final answer on this is that we just can't say anything affirmative because all of our projects/codebases are completely different. I've gone back and forth on the "codex vs claude" being better, and while I'm currently of the believe that Claude is superior, I understand that might be the case for _my_ particular set of projects and _my_ personal way of interacting with the model.
Meh, seems he's using arbitrary metrics to make arbitrary claims (which is fine). But to just state that "Life is so much better in 2026 than in 1926 for Americans" is obviously a pretty nebulous statement. It's like saying "Beaches in 2026 are so much better than beaches in 1926". Sure you could cherry-pick some metrics to make the case, and someone else could cherry-pick metrics to make the opposite case. Sort've a "talking just to hear yourself talk" kind've thing.
I think Elon owns a lot of real estate in these guys’ heads. When you have $200B+ in the bank, little else matters others than being seen as a titan of industry IMO. I think the fact that Musk has Tesla and Spacex (even with all his extra curricular activities) makes a guy like Zuckerberg seethe that he’s just “the internet websites guy”.
TLDR: They're promoting a product they're working on with Cloudfare under the guise of it being an "open standard" [1]. Of course, in the docs, Step 1 is "Sign in with your Cloudfare account". Comes across a bit land-grabby.
[1] https://www.browserbase.com/blog/cloudflare-browserbase-pion...
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Maybe a little preachy, but the gist of the point isn't incorrect
status.claude.com looks like a holiday christmas ornaments
Thanks for helping!
Can someone invite me to lobste.rs ? HN user since 2014. Would love to try something new :)
Email is on my profile
As someone who's explored Open Design recently, I think that's about as close as we're going to get for now unfortunately. I agree it't not really on the same level as Claude Design.
Wait, the instructions are a little ambiguous. I clicked "Solution" and it has the dark-squared bishop on a white square! XD
Should maybe update the instructions to clarify that the dark-squared bishop is not constrained to dark squares.
Yes
Doesn't CLI use MCP (if need-be) ? I think you might attempting to say "Neat, discrete buckets of work?" (i.e., MCP - similar to HTTP in that work is broken into discrete canonical buckets), or "Virtually unbounded work made available via various CLI utilities?".
I would pick the second option. CLI.
However, for CRUD B2B SaaS I think MCP works fine (if not better than CLI).
Project name: SystemG
Project description: A general-purpose process composer.
What do you hope to build this month? It'd be nice to flush out some of the more minor UX quirks.
What kind of skills do you need? Anyone with strong Rust skills and who knows their way around various Linux distros.
Website: https://sysg.dev
Github: https://github.com/ra0x3/systemg
What runtimes are supported? I don't think I saw that part mentioned in the README
Absolutely https://github.com/ra0x3/systemg/tree/main/examples/orchestr...
Things are time bound by instruction creation - at some point you still need a human to dictate the instructions that the orchestrated agents use. From there I've found that -- (1) derive a goal from the instructions (2) break that goal into tasks (3) order those tasks into a DAG (5) spawn the agents to work via the DAG -- seems to be doing everything I want it to do.
Wash the spider rims on my car with soap and water, then dry them off completely such that no dirt or residue remains.
Working the same, the nature of the work has changed. Less time spent on the minutia of syntax and project scaffolding. More time spent on how the minutia compose into a larger system.
True, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to deploying (what are more often than not) web services, getting to the point with systemd where it "just works" requires more pain than I'd like - especially with regard to production deployments (reading logs, checking service status, wondering why my env vars aren't being read, etc).
If at the time when I was cutting my teeth on systemd, I had access to something more lightweight and "do one thing well", I think I would've gotten a lot more sleep :)
systemg - "Systemd, for busy people".
https://github.com/ra0x3/systemg
I'm personally tired of getting stuck in config/deployment hell every time I want to deploy a long-lived web service. Sure I eventually learned how to use systemd, but systemd has SO many things baked into that I simply don't need. systemg is a lightweight process supervisor that features everything you'd typically want when running/managing production web services in the wild.
Would love feedback.
I have rarely in my 11+ years of professionally writing software, met someone who could _really_ "write code", but couldn't build software. Anecdotal obviously. But I'd say the opposite tends to be the case IMO - those who tend to really know "the code", also tend to know how to effectively build software (relatively speaking).
It kinda makes sense - "knowing how to code" in modern tech largely means "knowing how to build software" - not write single modules in some language - because those single modules on their own are largely useless outside the context of "software".
If you want to migrate off Spotify but are worried you’ll lose your library, feel free to checkout my tool Libx (libx.stream). It’s a tool to export your entire Spotify library to a nice and neat CSV file
Upvote because can someone explain to someone as dense as me, whether or not this is likely to make some likely AI bubble worse? Is this just how industry allocates capital?
Brandon. He was a traditionally trained SWE (CS) but didn't have crazy FAANG names on his resume. Very humble, soft spoken guy. Could write code twice as fast as you, that was 2x easier to understand/grok, and would run 5x more effecciently than yours. Knew the stack all the way from the web layer to the CPU cache level. To this day I think about how he was thee definition of a "10x engineer".
Excellent, professional, and very valuable response :)
This is a really good point.
At a certain point, huge prompts (which you can readily find available on Github, used by large LLM-based corps) are just....files of code? Why wouldn't I just write the code myself at that point?
Almost makes me think this "AI coding takeover" is strictly pushed by non-technical people.
This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
but I feel less emotionally invested in the craft of coding.
I don't think caring about the craft of coding and using AI tools are mutually exclusive options. I think you can totally do both! In a way, some of these tools actually allow you more space and time to "care about the craft" because they can take care of all of the mundane boilerplate for you.
A man once said "Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships."[1]. Well IMO these tools allow programmers the time/space to care about data structures and their relationships -vs syntax and such.
What we are doing in practice when delegating coding to LLMs is climbing up the abstraction level ladder.
100%. I like to say that we went from building a Millennium Falcon out of individual LEGO pieces, to instead building an entire LEGO planet made of Falcon-like objects. We’re still building, the pieces are just larger :)