sak84

this resonates hard and exactly what i'm trying to build to solve at elvex.

the missing pieces we are building around are: - unified auth/permissions across multiple AI providers - secure data connections without exposing credentials to agents - audit trails for compliance - team collaboration (who can deploy what agents where)

the article's right that the tech is ready but the architecture isn't. most companies are duct-taping OpenAI API + LangChain + custom auth + manual governance

elvex gives you the platform layer: multi-provider AI, data integrations, team permissions, workflow orchestration. not saying it's the only option but we're solving the "how do we actually deploy this" problem

yeah the gap between "chatbot that writes code" and "actual multi-agent workflow" is real

built elvex to solve this with: - multi-provider access (Claude, GPT, Gemini, etc.) so different agents can use different models - actual team permissions so agents don't step on each other - workflow orchestration without duct-taping APIs together

the parallel execution thing you mentioned - elvex handles that. you can spin up multiple agents with different contexts, they share a knowledge base, and you're not manually managing git worktrees or containers

not saying it's magic but it definitely solves the "how do i go from 1 agent to 10 agents without chaos" problem.

what workflows are you trying to automate?

Luck is a huge factor in startup success. But you can't capture luck if you're not around to grab it. Persistence is what keeps you in the game long enough for luck to find you. Intelligence is commoditized in this industry. Persistence is rare.

I think you're right that 10x isn't realistic for most work, and Brooks is still mostly correct. The "No Silver Bullet" argument holds because most of software development isn't typing code faster.

But you're describing exactly the shift that matters. You're not running faster, you're getting better quality. You're more likely to understand dependencies, write tests, try multiple solutions. That's the actual productivity gain.

The marshmallow challenge point isn't about whether AI makes you 10x faster. It's about the mindset shift. The MBAs didn't lose because they were slower. They lost because they spent their time planning the perfect approach instead of iterating.

The memory leak example from Boris Cherny isn't about AI being reliable. It's about his coworker not having the baggage of "this is how you debug memory leaks." They just tried asking Claude first. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But the willingness to try it first is what creates the gap.

I saw a tweet from Andrej Karpathy that's been sitting with me. He's never felt this behind as a programmer. I've been thinking about this through the marshmallow challenge, where kindergartners beat MBAs. The kids just build and iterate. Most of us are the MBAs right now with AI tools.

Appreciate the feedback (author, here). It is optimized for our qualified leads which are the top online publishers on the web. However, we've heard your feedback a few times in the past. We're working on a revamp to make it more descriptive for anyone who hits the site.

I work for Parse.ly who helped push out some of the data for the article. Fark.com was #15 on the list, above Digg, but below Reddit.

Perhaps then, it acts as a good filtering mechanism. You're able to figure out if individuals are value add or not quicker.

I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt. He's been running this joint for a while now, and I bet he actually is making decisions based on metrics he has. Though I agree that conversions from pizza to indian food is probably pretty low, it may just be that the margins are high enough that it warrants selling the pizza. I don't think he would do the pizza business unless it had promise in one way or another.

I work at Parse.ly, who's office is literally right next door to these pizza shops. Last week, when they changed their prices, I asked the owner of the Indian shop how low he'd go, and he said two very interesting things:

1. He hates two bros and wants to go low enough to make them leave the area.

2. He didn't make money from pizza even when it was priced at one dollar. The pizza barely pays for the cost of the labor to make it. So why do it at all? Because it acts as lead gen for his Indian food which has a much higher margin. He has essentially a freemium model that works to beat his competitor!

If you're speaking with investors, and are good about networking with funded startups chances are you can get office space for free for several months.

Regarding rent, you'll be paying a lot, and finding an apartment in NYC is a grueling process. But, there's a reason rent is high -- people love NYC!

Jesus, it seems like everything in a startup is like dating.

Finding a co-founder is like dating. Finding an investor is like dating. Being an entrepreneur is like dating.

Now, Freemium Models?

I'm kinda sick of the dating analogy personally.

2BR (straight up, not flex) 1.5 bath. I live with one other person.

I do live (fort greene) and work (manhattan) in NYC. You should never use broker's though, they're a waste of money. It does take a little work to find a good deal, but you definitely can if you look early enough.

Overall, I would agree. NJ seems to have the most cheap places.

Great point about 45 commute just inside Manhattan.

EDIT: I live in fort greene and I pay 735 a month -- for validation purposes.

Again, not true. Have you lived in Astoria (N train to Manhattan in half hour), Fort Greene (so many choices and 15 min to manhattan), Jersey City (path train to manhattan in less than half hour).

Brooklyn Heights is a terrible example. It's where the executives who work across the water live. Of course that is going to be super expensive.

There are lots of places that you can find, that are comparable to SF & Boston, and sometimes cheaper. Let me know if you need help here!

VCs/Angels in NYC(northeast as well) are just not in the same investing environment as the West Coast. And it's solely because this area is just not as mature as there. There are the investors that are smart and are willing to take the risks (Founder's Collective, USV, FRC, Flybridge etc.), but the problem is that they are few and far between relative to earlystage VCs and angels on the west coast. Therefore, because they're smart, have branding and don't have serious competition, they DON'T have to take the risk. And why would they, who would blame them? They can wait until the company is almost completely de-risked before they move in. (I guess an argument here is that it's a good thing that the early stage investing industry is small and less risky here. If they succeed more will come.)

The other investors here (the wall streeters turned VCS) just don't get it. They're not investing, as you say, in "change the world" ideas. They're investing in stuff that can make money right away, which is probably why they ask about pricing prematurely.

NYC is frustrating in this respect, and it's easy to see why you're thinking about the West Coast. They're just way more intelligent, early-stage investors. That's changing though, I believe. It just sucks to be a startup in this sort of purgatory. The more Ron Conway's that come to the east the better!

Not true, you can find cheap places to live, if you're willing to live outside Manhattan. Jersey City, Queens, BK, are all viable options for the scrappy founder.

A more quantitative look at this same thing. Basically saying that people pick what interests them. This is pretty technical, but by some pretty smart people:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmshapir/bias.pdf

And, my own experiment with media influence. This counteracts both the master link and the link above. My short experiment has correlation to show that the media has more influence on public perception. Though, this was just a proof-of-concept and not a vetted research project:

http://publicthoughts.com/media-affects-opinion/

Anyone use this yet? Does it work well?

What type of meditation? How often is semi-regularly?

I went on a green tea stint for a couple years. I bought some really expensive green tea also, which tasted delicious and felt wonderful. The problem though, was that I began drinking it too much, and did not feel the effect of the caffeine that I used to. Since then, I have switched to coffee, but I still don't get the feeling that I did when I drank green tea. So sad.

Where do you get your tea?

I am confused. Why are you asking people what to do with your money when we know nothing about you?

Do you want to just hold on to this money and live off the interest?

Do you want to make more money by working?

Would you like to invest in the stock market?

Are you risk-averse?

Are you willing to move?

Are you charitable?

etc.

Basically, I'm not sure this is the right type of place to ask this question if you are going to tell nothing about yourself and what you aspire to be in life.

What other hacks do HNers use to get their brains churning?

I'm not so sure that a CEO/Founder needs to know code, but I do think that a Founder of a startup company in the software realm should understand where programmers are coming from.

This post seems to be written from the perspective that if you are developing a product that utilizes code, and you have no money to spend, then clearly, you must write the code. However, some of the comments about this article aren't talking about this aspect, but rather that people who aren't coders, don't understand coders.

This, I don't think, is necessarily true. I believe that by keeping up with what coding/technology can provide, while also understand a programmer's philosophy, a noncoder can facilitate an environment that supports constructive collaboration between both the coder and the noncoder.

In short: I don't think you necessarily need to have deep coding skills to start a tech company utilizing programmers. I do think you need to have a great idea, an open mind, and a willingness to step inside the shoes and take the perspective of the coder.

Sounds like Seth Roberts' Shangri-Diet is getting some serious research to back it up.

http://www.sethroberts.net/science/

Google Reader. I try to keep my feeds clean, skimming over headlines and marking content I do not want to read as read. Then, I actually read the rest of the posts.

I have also been looking for something similar to what you are mentioning, but have yet to find anything. Having the ability to choose between groups to share with seems easy enough.

The delicious method described above would work, but I believe you are right - there should be something a little easier.

Hopefully we'll find it today!

100K for 30 years, is not as much as you would think. The problem with teaching right now, is that there is not a concrete way to have really great teachers shine.

In enterprise, employees that would perform really well would be accordingly compensated (theoretically) with a higher salary/bonus. This doesn't happen with teachers though. You could be a terrible teachers, with terrible results, but have tenure and still reach that 100,000k mark without a hitch.

I believe unions are important to ensure some job security and fair practice, but not at the expense of our children's education. There should be competitive practices in public education, that allow teachers to earn way more than 100,000k, but also does not guarantee that a teacher will rise on a pay scale when they just babysit in a classroom.

I speak from experience as I was formerly a teacher in NYC, where I encountered many teachers that were not competent to teach, but yet continued to exist in their role. There are schools that are trying experimental means to increase the quality of teaching - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?ex... - but ultimately we need to think of a new system of rewarding the best teachers and getting rid of the worst.