I fought for years trying to convince my colleagues to write good commit messages. Now Claude is writing great commit messages but since I'm no longer looking at code - I never see them. I don't think Claude uses them either.

Branches are now irrelevant since all agents work in worktrees by default. But worktrees are awkward since you run out of disk space fast (since we're in a monorepo).

There is a constant discussion ongoing whether we commit our plans or not. Some argue that the whole conversation leading up to the PR should be included (stupid imo).

The game changed completely. It isn't weird that people are wondering if the tools should as well.

Definitely feels like there's opportunity to build something better

What GP wrote sounds like an absolute nightmare of tech debt and unmaintainable spaghetti code that nobody understands anymore to me.

But I guess for some people the increased speed outweighs all other concerns?

"I'm not sure. But at least we got here fast."

I thought the consensus what that vibe coding is a bad idea and you're supposed to review whatever is machine-generated, however "good enough" you believe it to be.

Nevertheless the joke is already dead. There's no reason not to explain.

I do wonder, though, if it would have been designed differently if the whole “code forge” sort of application (or whatever GitHub and the like are called) was envisioned at the time. Pull requests aren’t even a concept in git proper, right?

It seems like a kind of important type of tool. Even though git is awesome, we don’t need a monoculture.

So the maintainer adds you as a remote and pulls from you.

    git request-pull

Generates a pretty email requesting someone to pull commits from your online repository. It's really meant for Linus to pull a whole bunch of already-reviewed changes from a maintainer's integration branch.

The rough equivalent to GitHub's "pull request" is the "patch series", produced by:

    git format-patch

Which lets you provide a "cover letter" (PR description), and formats each commit as a diff that can be quoted inline in an email reply for code review.

Interesting that DAG model means any branch from anywhere can be merged... the forge is just coordination.

Explored here if curious - https://vectree.io/c/git-graph-theory-logic

But it took a big brain with a systemic view of the problem and solutions space to bring them all together - in a lighting fast implementation to boot.

1. it was free;

2. it was sponsored by the most fashionable project of the time (Linux);

3. it did not require a server;

4. because it was FOSS, people could extend it without asking anyone's permission; and...

5. ...once GitHub appeared, simplifying the PR process, the network effect did its thing.

Git was hard to use and to understand. It did not win on technical features alone, as you said there were plenty of alternatives. It won because of community and network effects.

So is ffmpeg and ImageMagick. Or Blender. Or Freecad. There are domains that do require some learning and training to properly use the available tool.

GitHub is a social networking site that just so happens to have code hosting related features.

It's as much a social network/collaboration tool as it is place to store your code these days.

I would argue that it was purposefully designed in contrast against that model.

GitHub is full of git anti patterns.

Edit: see "git request-pull" as mentioned below (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Git/mingw64/share/doc/git-doc/git-request-pull.html) but what it does is write "a pretty email" (the other poster's words) to STDOUT.

What? Is the intention, that I access your C: drive? Also is it common to have a file:// link on MS Windows? I thought this was a unix thing.

I think the file:/// is so that you can fire off "[cmd /c] start FILEPATH" to load the default browser, while also not having to worry about spaces in the path.

Because that’s too risky for investors.

Solving actual problems are hard, and even harder to get money for (see research). Most VC’s are in it for the returns only, not actually making a change, there are some exceptions but they are far and few apart.

"We've replaced due diligence with a DNA test."

"No mutts, no miracles. Three generations of wealth or GTFO."

"Your bloodline is fine. Don't fret the cap table."

"You forgot to attach the pitch deck, but we really like your family crest."

[0] https://pickupbricks.com

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X25MIpQqLIU

This video is from 8 years ago:

https://youtu.be/wXxrmussq4E?si=bgDdDvZODVov3sSC&t=15

I'm sure, by now we could make them for <$1k per robot, if we wanted to.

EDIT: BTW did you see that the page you linked to has this at the bottom of their landing page:

"Example product"

"This area is used to describe your product’s details. Tell customers about the look, feel, and style of your product. Add details on color, materials used, sizing, and where it was made."

so I wonder if they actually sell anything.

I'm not seeing it. When I search for "example" nothing comes up, but maybe I'm looking wrong.

I see it on Amazon as well, with reviews and videos from "customers", so I assume it's not vaporware and that is more an issue with people not filling out the full website template, which is also not a great sign.

https://www.amazon.com/Pick-Up-Bricks-Compatible-Accessories...

https://us.roborock.com/pages/roborock-saros-z70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0AGhb6p8sE

I used subversion for 10 years and don’t ever recall a problem when it was offline but the killed feature of GitHub - distributed source control - proved too complex For the majority of development teams. Instead there’s a “main” which people fork, add a feature, then merge and delete the fork.

I came here to say precisely that. I was on svn before git was a thing, and I've never moved off it for any projects where I get to decide such things.

To a first approximation, one could say that distributed version control is a problem nobody ever had, and nobody ever intends to have. (GitHub is the world's centralized monorepo.)

Yet, distributed version control is the majority of the reason why git's mental model is so overcomplicated.

The distributed aspect is important because it let me separate how I’d like to control changes vs how it’s done in the canonical repo. I sync when I want to.

It doesn't solve the picking-up-off-the-floor problem.

If you need (D)VFS aka Distributed Versioned Filesystem, grab right tool. Or write one.

This is exacly way I wrote DOT (Distributed Object Tracker). Its pure DVFS repo manager, to handle binary blobs and that it.. Nothing more.

People complaining about GIT not working well w/ big data just handling GIT wrong. Linus said it from the begining, its NOT tool for such datasets. Just move along.

There are some things that need to come from a place of manic self-motivated genius. It's not something that you can buy with money. The money is really just there to help you shove a mediocre solution down everyone's throats (which is exactly what's going on here).

Then again, it is used for non-coding tasks, but any and all of it's UI problems are not from the method of storage (pretty much any modern VCS uses same "tree of linked snapshots of filesystem) so making one while still making it git compatible just with better ui (like Jujutsu) is very much possible

People complaining about investors throwing stupid sums of money at stupid or trivial things unrelated (or only marginally related) to AI? ...sounds to me like the first glimpse of hope I have come across in this industry for half a decade.

> Today, with Git, we're all teaching swarms of agents to use a tool built for sending patches over mailing lists. That's far from what is needed today.

Let me just state the obvious. Of all the major problems of society, sorting legos isn't one. If you disagree, try emerging from the cellar.

Kids face a lot of new problems these days. They also face some old one, like sorting their legos.

Then you step on a lego.

Who really wants cheap lego vacuums? Basement-dwellers who are getting yelled at by their mom? Not a good market.

Rather, the GP merely implied that some parents would love to have a robot to sort their kids legos, and that (ironically) even that unimportant "need" is more important than replacing git.

I think if you have a healthy busy growing well, you shouldnt raise unless you have ambition and urge to go faster.

Irony of thr market is, just like tinder 20% of the companies attract all the attention rest of them try to gran the attention. Those who need capital get the capital, those who need the capital die trying.

Enough friday pessimisim.

My previous employer was like this. A 20yo company with a nice always increasing ytoy growth. The CEO told for 20 years that he would never raise any money. It was an incredible place to work : nice compensation, product and consumer centered, we had time and means to do the right things.

Until the CEO changed his mind and raised money anyway. But we didn't have to fear anything because those investors were very different and not like the other greedy ones.

Well I'm not working there anymore for a hella lot of reasons that are just the same as everywhere else.

But at least the CEO who was already rich is now incredibly rich.

If you find a greedy VC then most likely they are real VC and often gets attracted when your business is not doing great.

Reputation travels in this industry therefore people care.

Founders are only one stakeholder. There are employees ( I think they fall into that category ), customers, suppliers, and the wider society.

It all comes back to why does the company exist - and for which stakeholders. I think that's the point the original author is making.

I don't buy the argument that making money in the end is a perfect surrogate for overall good - it's not - it's an imperfect surrogate - and to pretend it is a perfect surrogate is just an excuse to behave like an arsehole.

To make that concrete, let's say you are a chemical company making paints - really important job, paints are needed the cheaper you can make them, the more people can have them etc, but if you knowingly pollute a local river just because you can get away with it and increase your profits - saying that increased profits justifies polluting the river based on the assumption that river pollution is correctly priced ( free ) is an obvious convenient excuse to be a selfish arsehole.

I wish the companies understood the tremendous cost to society of polluting our well of knowledge.

But no, as your mention it is free for them to pollute, so they do liberally

However you are right to point out there is a problem. Typically societies ( via governments ) try and fix by appropriately pricing the behaviours via regulation/laws ( fines or prison for the people doing it ).

However making regulation/laws is hard. What's your proposal to fix the problem you've identified?

You might hit a moment where a lot of people whose only purpose in life is using Claude Code, um, well, starve. But yeah, nature is metal like that.

What you are mixing is founder led business vs ceo led business. CEO often takes a short term view, when stakeholders are PE Firm, wall street, short term gains are prioritized. But for, a long term investor, would not incentivize you to take calls that would harm in long run.

What could be wrong is that, you wouldnt know all the consequences and causality of your decisions and thats very human thing in my opinion.

The general point is that leaders are people and many CEO/founders are decent, hardworking, brave people, and some people are arseholes - and I just wanted to highlight one of the excuses arseholes make for their behaviour.

Also note I have no special insight into the specific situation the original poster talked about - I do know working out how to hand on a company you've grown and led to the next generation is one of the hardest challenges.

That's not to say there isn't a lot to say about the positive power of markets - it's just that simplifying that to 'if I'm making money therefore it must be a societal optimal outcome' kind of justification is BS.

This is the reason why I don't wish for VC investments if I do something preferably.

Also I feel like your comment is highly accurate, I feel like this narrative though can sometimes be the only thing that matters, something like a vibes based economy.

I don't like this so much because some idea's technical prowess is taken at the back seat while its the marketing which ends up mattering, like many other things, it feels like that tends towards something akin to influencer level marketing and its something that I sometimes personally dislike.

To be honest, the reason why I am seeing YC investments especially from say people my age 18-19, is that, it is becoming a point of flex for them and just a capitalization of hype that they might have. It really does feel like it to me that when we boil down people and interactions sometimes into how much money they have, we lead inevitably to societies like ours.

The network is something that I understand can be hard to make though. I do believe network plays a role and I do feel like I have bootstrapped my own network by just talking with people online and helping, but I do believe one issue in that, that particular network isn't my business market sadly, and I do feel unsure about how to network to them and so I would be curious if others face somewhat of an similar issue.

Flex often dont translate to value. I often say dont look at what others are doing, head down focus and execute. Raising capital is actually the starting point, i would say it is not an achievement.

I think anyone can network. You dont have to be sales person, you have the increase your probability to be in the right place at the right time.

I feel like, my issue which can be a more society based issue is that we are all at the end of the day too busy with ourselves which can be fine, but what this leads to is that even with my extended family, I have seen people treat just a slight but observable way differently to elder cousins, one who make money and who doesn't and I do believe that cousins who might not earn money in the moment already have stress but it piles it on them maybe just a bit more too.

So I think that most of the world just somehow tries to quantify a person with one dimensional quantity sometimes, and this is why we see people whose only metric is to reach that goal and I am starting to feel like, its not the technical rigor or passion which matters sometimes but basically something akin to influencer-style marketing (Cluely has basically become a skit channel which has hundreds of millions of dollars by a16z I think)

And I feel like what this influencer-style thing is leading to is that our society, as a whole and people who build things, are jumping on the latest trends even when not understanding them (Claw-code was essentially the peak point of this-all) and we are basically adopting all the things wrong with the influencer-style culture and things are getting even more alienated from reality.

Our Industry/World-in-general is having grift and I am not saying it never had grift but I am witnessing something similar to algorithmic form of rage-baits being created by some people for them to not be left behind and we as a society, are now lacking the ability to have discourse with nuance in many-times/places.

> you have the increase your probability to be in the right place at the right time.

I completely agree with you but I do sometimes wonder if I am on Hackernews or if it is the right place. I mean, I am here first and foremost because I like talking here but from that viewpoint you mention, I have sometimes wondered if I should use twitter but I refuse to use it pretty much for most things simply because I feel like I would be yet another part of this cycle of rage-bait and being sucked into it and I am not sure if it would be well worth it. I am not sure if twitter etc. are worth it and I feel like even with things like Youtube etc., in both of these it becomes a very number game with things like followers etc.

Atleast within Hackernews, you don't have the concept of followers, so at one hand it is great but on the other, I question from that perspective if HN is the right place and where do you find people for businesses. Linkedin perhaps?

So in essence, I think I would say that I am unsure about the probabilities and what definition of right means. I would love it if you can talk more about it and thanks for commenting that comment, I appreciate it and I wish you to have a nice day!

This is why VC is a cancer on society. If you don't have a healthy business growing well, your business shouldn't get bigger.

> So I’d like to stress that while it really came together in just about ten days or so (at which point I did my first kernel commit using git), it wasn’t like it was some kind of mad dash of coding. The actual amount of that early code is actually fairly small, it all depended on getting the basic ideas right. And that I had been mulling over for a while before the whole project started. I’d seen the problems others had. I’d seen what I wanted to avoid doing.

Just so that people know that creating software is not only coding.

My comment is unrelated on the point you are making about expenses.

They went over this, in the documentary titled "Idiocracy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRzIOna2oQ

Well, cofounding Github helps

It reminds me how the Bohemian Club’s slogan, “Weaving Spiders Come Not Here” is a bit farcical given that it is impossible for the club members not to engage in commerce.

Money is given to ideas that might become billion dollar businesses and teams that look like they can do it. Pedigree, domain expertise, previous exits.

Team matters. What other proxies are there?

Lately, for founders, to which prison they went.

Then, we will develop (read: sell) AI agents that will ingest a proposed code change (created by your front-line agent), and iteratively refactor it until the commit agent accepts it.

That's the Platinum Premier tier. If you're on the regular tier, paying the minimum, the AI will silently fix all that right up for you.

While that's completely true, I do think it misses a key underlying point: VCs (and many breeds of investor) are not ultimately selecting for value creating ideas, or for their friends: they're selecting for investments they believe _other people_ will pay more for later.

In the case of startups, those people are most likely other VCs (at later rounds), private equity (at private sale) or retail investors (at IPO).

Very rarely is the actual company profitable at any of those stages, demonstrably and famously.

So the whole process is selecting for hype-potential, which itself is somewhat correlated to the usual things people get annoyed about with startup cliches: founders who went to MIT; founders who are charismatic; founders who are friends with VCs; etc...

So yeah, they invest in their friends, but not because they're their friends. Because they know they can more reliably exit those investments at a higher value.

The clearest of these is that you have already built it, or an MVP of it that is more than just smoke and mirrors, and there’s users and customers.

If you have excellent proof points and actual revenue growth, you could show up with no pants smelling like weed and somebody might fund you. Then they’d call their press people to do an “eccentric genius founder” piece about the person who showed up stoned with no pants and their pitch was that good. That’s cause if your graph goes up and to the right you’re not crazy, you’re “eccentric.”

If you don’t have any proof they fall back on secondary evidence, like credentials and schools and vibes. The latter, yes, often overlaps with cronies.

And unfortunately that by necessity includes most ideas that cost a lot to prototype, which means credentialism and croneyism tends to gate keep fields with a high cost of entry.

Do you need a working product to get funding? No. But you do need a compelling investment thesis - which takes months and even years of deep thought to come to fruition. Of course you can shortcut this process by smooching but only a select few can pull that off.

Good ideas are a decent subset, but you could also have a bit of "Greater Fool Theory" compliant ideas.

> Money is not given to good ideas (though, it doesn’t hurt). Money is given to friends.

I have an obvious counter example. I'm sure money is invested for all sorts of reasons to all sorts of people. I'm also sure that money is not exclusively invested based on friendships, and I'm quite sure that money is at times invested based on the merits of an idea. Obviously those merits have to correspond to the ability to form the basis of a successful company, unless it's a philanthropic investment.

Obviously, it is not that cut and dry, but it is kind of impressive how much of the money circulating around is between the same people. I’m not really condemning it. I think it is a natural consequence because humans trust other humans they know. People should be more aware of it and need to make sure they keep it in check. Otherwise, you eventually start getting high on your own supply.

This is also true for how HFT guys make money. It's not that they are very good in investments. The Fed injects money constantly from the top which gets distributed or trickle down to such firms. Because in a tight economy which is not akin to gambling, it should be near to impossible to make money so easily.

[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=gitbutler

So the financial model is no different from any other SaaS. Whereas hardware is high risk capital intensive and China centric.

That said, if you ever decide solve the tidying the toys problem, start a kickstarter, I pledge to pledge support! :D

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Toy-Storage-Organizer-Lego-Play/dp/...

So, even though Git seems to be ok (people who store large binary files or who run huge monorepos would probably disagree), maybe we can do better.

Altavista was kind of okeish for search, yet Google managed to figure out something that was (at that time) way better.

Perhaps you should have. Based on the link it seems like it's more an extension to than replacement for Git.

The page is mostly sort of fluffy AI hype, but the concrete bits are things like integrating issue tracking and PR logic in one tool/repo, like e.g. fossil does.

Also git proper could use some love too. The UI is still a mess. And the large file support and the submodule/subtree/subrepo situations are quite dismal.

> $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size.

Doing this robustly is probably quite far from robotics SOTA.

Neither of them is doing to be remotely prepared for what I'm going to do, which is actually replace Git.

Because solving problems isn’t the goal, the goal is money (and sometimes a little fame) with the least possible effort, and software can be changed on a whim and is very cheap to manufacture and distribute and “fix in flight”, it’s the perfect vehicle for those who are impatient and don’t really care about understanding and studying a need.

sometimes it's just wait until your kid grows up and learns to put the LEGO away

there's a lot of people working on hard problems that are pretty far from software

being cynical about early stage software (and any company that is overpromising like Theranos, Nikola, etc..) is warranted, but also money as a reward motivates a lot of innovation (PV panels, batteries, EUV lithography)

the founder does not want to risk money for his own idea

while

funders have simultaneously also too much money while believing they don't have enough.

That very simple dynamic is what is driving investment in the Silicon Valley, itself praised worldwide as the forefront.

That's what bringing our own civilization on the economical (AI bubble), ecological (AI bubble, car brain) and democratic (surveillance capitalism, privacy zuckering) cliff.

And what's the next step? I can't even imagine how rich (and how large the their houses) the parents need to be for them to comfortably buy such dedicated tool. Perhaps 100x~1000x richer than me?

And, while this is just pulled out from my rear side, I feel even getting this passed safety regulation would cost your $17M. It's a fully automated machine working next to toddlers!

On the contrary Github is a proven product.

This seems ridiculous to you, compared to a very obvious win with a Lego sorting vacuum.

Lego isn’t niche, and the explanation isn’t a weird technical thing that only experts would get and understand how important or valuable it is.

Yet it’s not being done.

Is there nobody who has realised this gap but you? Has nobody managed to convince people with money that it’s worthwhile? Have you tried but failed?

Or is it not many many thousands of people who are wrong but you?

Is the problem harder than you think? I’ve worked with robotics but not for a long time and I think the core manipulation is either not really solved or not until recently. I don’t know about yours but my kids also don’t fully dismantle their Lego creations either so would the robot need to take them apart too? That’s a lot of force. And some are special.

How people want Lego sorted is pretty broad. Kids don’t even need it sorted that much. And the volume can be huge for smaller buckets of things.

Is the market not as big as you think? Is it big enough for the cost, I’d buy one for £100 but £1000? £10,000?

How does it compare for most people against having the kids play on a blanket and then tipping it into a bucket? Or those ones that are a circle of cloth with a drawstring so it’s a play area and storage all in one? I 3d printed some sieves and that’s most of the issue right there done.

People are solving actual problems, but lots of problems are hard, and not all of them are profitable.

As a gut feeling, there is such a large overlap of engineers and large Lego collections and willingness to spend lots of money and time saving some time sorting Lego that the small number of implementations usually split over many years is very telling about the difficulty.

For what it’s worth I want this too.

I just looked into this out of idle curiosity, after watching some guy build a LEGO sorting machine. (They work in a warehouse that sells used bricks for model builders.)

Interestingly, this is on the cusp of viability, but training the ML model would still be cost-prohibitive (for me). With $17M, it's within reach, but there's still the obvious mechanical hurdles: Kids don't disassemble their Lego, the conditions are "less than ideal", and even vibrating belts in a warehouse scenario have a lot of trouble keeping bricks separated for the camera to get a clear image.

Robot hands are nowhere near the point where they can reliably (or even unreliably!) take apart two arbitrary Lego bricks that are joined, let alone anything of even mild complexity. This is hard for most humans, and often requires the use of tools! See: https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help-topics/article/lego-...

The machine vision part is... getting there! You could pull some clever tricks with modern hardware such as bright LED lights, multi-spectral or even hyper-spectral sensors, etc. The algorithms have improved a lot also. Early attempts could only recognise a few dozen distinct shapes, and the most recent models a few hundred, but they're about 2-3 years old, which means "stone ages".

A trick several Lego recognition model training runs used was to photo realistically render 3D models of bricks in random orientations and every possible color, which is far faster than manually labelling photos of real bricks.

These days you could use the NVIDIA Omniverse libraries to heavily accelerate and automate this.

Consider that many of the tech posts here are of the form, "i did X but with Z" as the poster hopes they will be recognized as some master of execution.

I had a few interactions with VCs (both professional and personal), where I didn't care because I wasn't benefitting from them. One of them was "an expert in CRISPR and blockchain" (WTF?) and... well I didn't need much time to see that he did not understand what a "hash" was. He was mostly an expert at repeating stories he had been told about how he would make a ton of money with the latest bullshit he didn't understand.

The truth is, it's like trading. You diversify the investments and hope that the economy goes up (respectively that one of the startups you invested in gets profitable). The only thing a VC has to do is verify that they don't invest in a fraud, but even that is hard given that they never understand the technology enough to say it's worth it (they often invest in shiny bullshit).

Per Matt Levine, the optimum amount of fraud is non-zero. Tune your detector too loosely or too tightly and you'll miss out.

But for fraud that hasn't happened yet don't worry about it and hope nobody figures out how to do it.

To be fair, many times founders are extremely convinced about their idea, they don't necessarily consciously sell bullshit to the VCs.

It just feels like what matters is to be very good at convincing VCs, not at building something real. When you're so good at getting money, of course eventually something will work (because you will be able to hire competent people to do the job). And then you will be called a "visionary", and people will say "we need HIM as a CEO because nobody else would be able to hire tons of competent people to build stuff with billions of dollars" :-).

You never sort by color, ever! You sort by form, and then throw every color of that specific form in one bin. If you throw every red brick in the same bin, you'll never find a specific formed red brick because to many red bricks. But if you first search by form and then by color, you are much faster.

Index the many valued column, not the column with few discrete values.

https://youtube.com/@disturbingthepiecepod

Anyone have a solution for another annoying problem: 1 missing piece.

Somehow got lost halfway through the build.

Also, Lego will send you any missing pieces for free.

there are to many types of bricks to sort by form. unless you have an inventory the size of a brick factory you can only sort by category or by size.

otherwise, sorting by color makes your collection aesthetically pleasing, and when you build, you usually want to use specific colors only to make your model look good.

And then if you like to sort further you sort out the smallest of each bin because those always fall to the bottom when mixed together

Missing socks (and containers or their lids) are still great unsolved problems in 2026. Solving this issue is like fusion, always 10 years away.

Not be tied to Microslop and migrated to Azure?

While I personally doubt that for $17M one could build such a vacuum robot prototype (for a vacuum cleaner company, investing this amount of money - if it worked - would be a rounding error), I will rather analyze the point that you raised:

It is a very common situation that the workflows of companies is deeply ingrained into some tool

- that they can't get rid of (be it Microsoft Excel (in insurance and finance), be it Git (in software development), ...)

- that is actually a bad fit for the workflow step (Git and Excel often are)

So, this is typical for the kind of problem that companies in sectors in which billions of $/€ are moved do have.

I am actually paid to develop some specialized software for some specialized industrial sector that solves a very specific problem.

So, in my experience the reason why nobody [is] solving actual problems (in the sense of your definition) anymore is simple:

- nobody is willing to pay big money for a solution,

- those entities who are willing to pay big money often fall for sycophantic scammers/consultants.

The first Roomba prototype from iRobot was two weeks and $10k in 1999 [1], and S. C. Johnson's funding was up to $2M [1]. The public estimate for total pre-launch program cost is $3M. [2]

In 2026 $, that's about $19k, $4M and $6M respectively.

[1] https://nymag.com/vindicated/2016/11/roombas-long-bumpy-path...

[2] https://dancingwithroomba.com/funding-tertill/

Also, I already built a robot arm, a robot car, and a custom camera in my free time. So I’m having a hard time imagining that a robot vacuum prototype wouldn’t be possible for me to build in a year, let alone with the team size that $1m in annual salaries buys.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1lr75lp239o

You can do it with 0-3 digits of license cost too.

There's no sane way the business overhead more than doubles things.

The problem is that the cost of replacing git isn't measured in money, it's measured in time.

It's one of the few programming projects that no amount of money can buy, and ironically getting more money often means having less time.

At the same time, you just can't scale up a company then decide to disruptively innovate on your core tech. You either put your nose to the grindstone or you let yourself play and explore but you can't do both at once.

Why are we trying to replace git? What is the problem with git?

Thought so until saw this. Man, he is the co-founder of Github and already seed-funded. How can someone refuse him? 17M is a small amount considering the valuation VS Code Agent wrappers are getting

I mean who tf gives some small team millions to put some Nvidia GPU into space and thinking we will have market disrupting GPU clusters in space in 10 years?!

There are so many low hanging fruits in IT Industry to just being solved.

Even just having something like well build, open smart home products whould have been disruptive years ago (until someone like ikea decides to enter that space).

The world doesn’t need this. It would just be more plastic and electronic trash.

You and your kids have hands. Pick them up. It’s what we do in my house.

If you don’t have hands, use your feet.

All you need is a camera pointing at the floor with image detection... when there's legos on the floor it triggers a video playing that explains how the kids need to pick up the legos. /s

Building UI and auxiliary features on top of Git is a crowded space, it’s not clear what compelling innovation they are bringing to the table.

Just write down how you'll spend the money to make that, what it'll eventually cost to produce, what the market size will be, and what the price will be, and if it's enough return you can easily convince someone to give you $17m to do it all.

For example, instead of building a robot to pick up Lego bricks, say you’re building a platform for personal robotics, and it’ll cook you food, do your laundry, repair your fridge. It doesn’t matter if you have any idea how to do this, just say you need $50M and you’ll hire some robotics and vision guys to figure it out. The bigger and bolder the lie, the better.

We've strayed really far from where technical innovation began