codingdave
They say fossil fuels only add 4% to the atmosphere. True, or at least, we'll accept it for the purposes of the argument because that number does not matter. Their argument assumes that 4% is meaningless. It is not. It is adding 4% to a closed loop ecosystem. This is not a one-time 4% fluctuation, it is a permanent 4% addition to a closed system. That is not trivial. That is not negligible.
Yup. It does.
It is a cute idea. But the implementation is flawed.
And if the goal is to help people explore cultural artifacts, building a game that actually minimizes the importance of the artifacts, and literally just drives the player to squash them up into a great big ball might not be the best way to help people actually appreciate the items.
Which tells me that people still highly value a personal connection to anything online. It also tells me that people don't want original content from AI - they want original perspectives on existing content.
Because if you answer to that is "No", then you should not apply, no matter who you are. YC plays a very specific game. It is not the best game if your goal is to build a company. It is the game to play if you want a high-risk, high-reward experience where a small handful of people get rich, while most other people do not.
Some people want to play that game. If you are one of them, apply. I have no idea if the odds favor you or not, but I guarantee you will not get accepted if you don't apply.
At the same time, if you choose not to apply, or do not get in, don't worry about it. Many people have no interest in that path, and lead quite fulfilling lives being completely outsiders to all of it.
The big picture does matter. Priority does matter. So this UX has a valid use case. But that use case is about making sure things progress and you don't utterly forget something important.
Also, this quote: "Other apps push you to get more done."
Again, big disagree. My to do list doesn't push me, it is a just a list. Even the management of my property (which is large because I own a forest, wetlands, some small ag, outbuildings, and the actual home), which I run on a Kanban board doesn't push me. It just organizes it without a timeline. If anything, this app is far more pushy than anything I do today.
In other words, this really smells like one person's personal organization style. If they find other people with the same style, they may find a market, but I suspect they will instead find that there is a reason that seemingly every coder has at one time or anther written their own To Do app. Because everyone wants something different.
Those years tell me 2 things:
1) Yes, absolutely version control for legislation is critical.
2) That doesn't mean Git is the right answer.
Since I don't work at the federal level, I don't know what system they use, but I do know that their workflow is already based on specific changes - they will write up the changes to a document, then apply the changes and publish a new document. Those documents are posted on congress.gov. So they do have a versioning workflow and public accessibility, just not the same style as software devs are used to. I'm sure it could be improved, but I'm not sure forcing them into our working style is the right answer.
The real goal here is not "Use Git". That is an implementation detail, and one that has also been presented and discussed quite a bit in my niche of the industry. Mostly, it is unwanted. Or was unwanted the last time the discussion went around. Git makes sense to software engineers, but not to the general public, and not to any of the document authors I've worked with. Maybe we can add a UX layer to fix that, but that isn't the bigger point...
What we want is to work towards the actual goals: For the tracking to be more detailed, with more transparency including not only authorship of the change, but the source of the change. And presumably, some commentary as to why the change was made. Then all of that should be available to the public.
If git works as a data structure that supports a solution that meets those goals, fine. I'm not anti-git. But when designing solutions, we need to start from the goals of the system, not the data layer. And we need to design solutions that the document authors will actually use, not force them to work like us.
I also figured that people who write badly might see what is wrong with their writing when a diagram shows just how off their words really are. My teenagers think that the resulting diagrams would be a brutal yet effective way to combat the misinformation online.
In any case, I wrote it. But then I stopped because I wasn't sure where to really take it. But it feels a bit validating to know that I'm not alone in seeing the value of breaking down written text.
I'm not sure - maybe humans can write like this, too. But it is the written equivalent of a monotone voice, and I find it very difficult to keep enough attention to read such articles, regardless of their authorship.
Scared of what, exactly? It looks to me like the site is primarily static content, so operational costs should be reasonable. He could scale down to just static content, and even if traffic decrease, it is not an existential crisis. Or am I missing something?
You've now posted this 3 different times in the last couple days.
You still tell people to download a zip and run that code. And on some other page you linked from your github it says to enter your AI key.
An OS doesn't need to be downloaded and run in Windows. This continues to be sketch AF.
The full transcript? Yikes. That is just going to burn the tokens down in the next session really quickly.
Is it so hard to monitor your session, and just ask for a context snapshot when you hit 90%?
Such comments also encourage the idea that people "own" the threads they start. I've seen people get mad when people take the conversation in a direction they did not want, or add instructions telling people what to talk about and putting constraints around discussion. Such things stifle interesting conversation.
So I land heavily the opposite direction. Just post, and leave it at that. If the community finds it interesting, discussion will ensue.
Now, Show HNs are their own thing. An initial explanation is absolutely appropriate for a show HN. But it should be part of the post, not a comment.
You need to order a car, then email them what you want, then they'll find a car for you. wat? Why are there listings if you need to email them to have them do a separate search?
Then, if they do find one for you, you need to pay $2000 before any inspections happen, which they say is refundable... but I am not sure I trust that.
And then if you follow the process that far, you pay $85 dollars for inspections, which is not refundable. Sounds like an ideal loophole to let them collect that $85 many times on the same car by just telling people, "Sorry, it failed inspections... want me to search for another?"
Maybe OP is malicious. Maybe they are not. But either way, someone claiming to have vibe-coded an OS in 4 days and expecting people to download and run it is a quick and easy "No." from me.
Testing has always been a game of figuring out how much is enough to produce a stable product, without burning massive amounts of engineering time with testing. LLMs have not changed that. They will never be perfect, and that is OK. Same as with humans, you need to define your own comfort zone for quality controls and accept that there will be bugs. Fixing those bugs will be part of your process. If you get too many, increase testing. If you get none, you just have not yet discovered what was missed.
We're seeing it more and more. Someone whips out an app independently, launches it, then says, "How do I find users?", "Why does nobody use my app?" With the answer always being the same - they skipped the step of actually talking to potential users before coding.
So we see what is being described - lots of throwaway projects.
What is more likely to throw you off is services like trash. There is no centralized trash service that just picks it up. You need to handle it. Most of the time, people still hire someone to do it, so it also ends up being the same as living in the city, but you need to actively seek out a solution. Or DIY - I know plenty of folks around here who don't mind taking their trash to the dump once a week or so.
And you cannot order food for delivery. That simply does not exist here.
Not that you are wrong that if we had to go back to living like we did hundreds of years ago, it would not be comfy. But the reality of living out in the country is not as different as you seem to imagine.
Or, I just saw that a whole domain was registered to explain it: https://www.php2shell.com/
That is an odd caveat to throw on the end. Sure, to avoid frameworks you have to know what you are doing. Is that really such an outrageous expectation?
Yes, absolutely, and it goes back farther than criminals. Why do you think everyone's grandma has a jewelry collection, while less of the youth do? Because before the 70s, women were not allowed to have their own bank accounts. Their gold and jewelry was the only type of wealth they could keep for themselves.
And even if that didn't turn me off as a potential customer, I'd be seriously questioning whether I want to hire someone who claims to be a designer, when they didn't even put together a design for their own site that effectively tells me who they are.
Basically, I think you are too close to your own site design to see just how flawed it is. Sorry is that sounds harsh. But I'd re-do your entire approach. Don't put up a portfolio and then try to add commentary at the bottom - put up a easy-to-read, concise explanation of what problems you can solve for people. In this scenario, you are the product, and you need to market yourself just like any other product - tell people right off the bat why you will improve their life. If you don't do that, the portfolio is meaningless.