Hacker News Reader

I find Simon’s blog and TILs to be some of the highest signal to noise content on the internet. I’ve picked up an incredible number of useful tips and tricks. Many of them I would not have found if he did not share things as soon as he discovered something that felt “obvious.” I also love how he documents small snippets and gists of code that are easy to link to and cross-reference. Wish I did more of that myself.

> Many of them I would not have found if he did not share things as soon as he discovered something

You don’t know that. For all you know, your life would’ve been richer if you’ve read those thoughts after they’ve been left to stew for longer. For all you know, if that happened you would’ve said “most” instead of “many”. Or maybe not, no one can say for sure until it happens

> that felt “obvious.”

It’s not about feeling obvious. There is value in exploring obvious concepts when you’ve thought about them for longer, maybe researched what others before you had to say on the matter, and you can highlight and improve on all of that. Everyone benefits from a thoughtful approach.

> I’ve picked up an incredible number of useful tips and tricks. (…) I also love how he documents small snippets and gists of code that are easy to link to and cross-reference.

That is (I think clearly, but I may be wrong) not what I’m talking about. A code snippet is very far removed in meaning from a human insight. What I wrote doesn’t just concern Simon’s readers, but Simon as a person. Being constantly “on” isn’t good, it leads to exhaustion (as reported), which leads to burnout. While my first paragraph in the previous comment was a criticism, it was merely an introduction to the rest of the post which was given in empathy. I want us all to do and be better.

> There is value in exploring obvious concepts when you’ve thought about them for longer, maybe researched what others before you had to say on the matter, and you can highlight and improve on all of that.

That's exactly what I try to do.

I wrote more about my approach to that here: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/22/link-blog/#trying-to-a...

Respectfully, I think you are wholly missing the point. Running a link along and adding commentary to what other people have written is just social media, it is not at all the same thing as reflecting on a concept thoroughly. We’re discussing two different concepts.

My blog consists of different types of content.

I have a link blog which is links plus commentary. Each post takes 10-30 minutes to write. They're exactly like social media, though I try to add something new rather than just broadcast other people's content. https://simonwillison.net/blogmarks/

I collect quotations, which are the quickest form of content, probably just two minutes each. https://simonwillison.net/quotations/

I recently added "notes" which are effectively my link blog without a link. Very social media! I use those for content that doesn't deserve more than a couple of paragraphs: https://simonwillison.net/notes/

And then there are "entries". That's my long form content, each taking one to several hours (or occasionally more, eg ny annual LLM roundups). Those are the pieces of long-form writing where I aim to "reflect on a concept thoroughly": https://simonwillison.net/entries/

They have established themselves as a reliable communicator of the technology, they are read far and wide, that means they are in a great position to influence the industry-wide tone, and I'm personally glad they are bringing light to this issue. If it upsets you that someone else wrote about something you understood, perhaps consider starting a blog of your own.

Writing about "the obvious" is a useful service. Often people doubt what their own experience is telling them until someone else helps confirm their suspicions and put them into words.

Seems you wrote this at the same time I was responding to someone else. Since I addressed that point in the other reply, I link there and quote the relevant section.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955703#46958713

> There is value in exploring obvious concepts when you’ve thought about them for longer, maybe researched what others before you had to say on the matter, and you can highlight and improve on all of that. Everyone benefits from a thoughtful approach.

I’m not saying “don’t share the obvious”, because what is obvious to one person won’t be for someone else. What I am advocating for is thinking more before doing so. In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time. Often you also share a half-baked thought which only later gets the nuance it requires.

More often than not, it’s clear the thoughts should have been stewed for longer to develop into better, more powerful and cohesive ideas. Furthermore, that approach will truly give you back time and relaxation. I take no pleasure in you being exhausted, that is a disservice to everyone.

> In your posts I have repeatedly seen you advocate for opposing ideas at different (but not too distant) points in time.

One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time". I write about opposing ideas because they have their own merits.

I believe that most of the criticisms of generative AI are genuine problems. I also believe that generative AI provides incredible value to people who learn how to use it effectively.

I like to think I'm consistent about most of the topics I write about though. Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency?

> One of my core beliefs is that "two things can be true at the same time".

Which is, of course, true in some cases and false in others. But again, not what I’m talking about.

> Got any examples that stood out to you of my inconsistency?

Sorry, I don’t. You publish too often and obviously I’m not going to trawl through a sea of posts to find specific examples. I’m not trying to attack you. Again, my initial post was written in empathy; you’re of course free to take it in earnest and reflect on it or ignore it.

Also, I haven’t called you inconsistent. You’re using that word. I’m not saying you’re constantly flip-flopping or anything like that, and it’s not inconsistent to change one’s mind or evolve one’s ideas.

It feels like you’re doing in these comments what I have just described: going in too fast with the replies without really thinking it through, without pausing to understand what the argument is. It’s difficult to have a proper honest conversation if I’m trying to be deliberate towards you but you’re being solely reactive. That is, frankly, exhaustive, and that’s precisely what I’m advocating against.

OK, I think I get it.

Your primary argument here is that it's better to sit with ideas for a while before writing about them.

My counter-argument is that's what I do... for my long form writing (aka "entries"). My link blog is faster reactions and has different standards - while I try to add value to everything I write there it's still a high volume of content where my goal is to be useful and accurate and interesting but not necessarily deep and thoughtful.

And yeah, you're absolutely right that the speed at which I comment here is that same thing again. I treat comments like they were an in-person conversation. They're how I flesh out ideas.

I wrote about my philosophy around blogging in one of my long-form pieces a few years ago: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/

> I’ve definitely felt the self-imposed pressure to only write something if it’s new, and unique, and feels like it’s never been said before. This is a mental trap that does nothing but hold you back.

That's why I like having different content types - links and quotes and notes and TILs - that reduce the pressure to only publish if I have something deep, thoughtful and unique to say.

No his primary argument is that you are a fraudulent internet spammer masquerading as a software expert.

The opposite is also true. People often follow people off of a (figurative) cliff because that's what everyone is doing. We have copious toxic online communities to show for that. Most of the conversations around AI are falling into that type of cultish aspect. Look no further than YouTube to find how many born-again-AI-zealots emerged with ClawdBot/MoltBot/OpenClaw. It's just not as obvious in the blogosphere. The thing that is obvious is the constant "findings" that are nothing more than opinions. There's no historical evidence you won't change your mind in 10 minutes. And that's why I feel, as I read them, that these types of blog posts are foundationally built in sand.

> You don’t have to keep churning out multiple blog posts a day, every day.

The way Simon offers to send you less content if you sign up for the paid newsletter always made me suspicious that goal could be to overwhelm on purpose.

You feel like you should pay for the curated feed so you won't miss the really important advances in the firehose of content that's pumped out.

Haha, worst business model ever. I'm going to write things daily so people will pay me to write less!

Simon is a new form of troll and you hit the nail on the head of what: soapboxing the obvious all in the name of AI. Just like the OpenClaw article that hit the FP yesterday, these types of folks are either doing this for marketing or they're really elated by the mediocre. Has Simon actually produced anything novel or compelling? His blog posts surely aren't - so if that's any indication of his work output I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is a hard no.

And, who wants to be working on 3 projects simultaneously? This is the new "multitasking" agenda from generations ago with a new twist: now I just manage prompts and agents, bro! But the reality is: you think you're doing more than you actually are. Maybe Simon is just placating to his inevitable AGI overlords that he will still be useful in the coming Altmania revolution? No idea. Either way half the time I read his posts (only because they're posted here and I'm excited for his new discoveries) I can't stand to stomach his drivel.

> Has Simon actually produced anything novel or compelling?

Here are some of my recent posts which I self-evaluate as "novel and compelling".

- Running Pydantic’s Monty Rust sandboxed Python subset in WebAssembly https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/6/pydantic-monty/ - demonstrating how easy and useful it is to be able to turn Rust code into WASM that can run independently or be used inside a Python wheel for Pyodide in order to provide interactive browser demos of Rust libraries.

- Distributing Go binaries like sqlite-scanner through PyPI using go-to-wheel https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/4/distributing-go-binarie... - I think my go-to-wheel utility is really cool, and distributing Go CLIs through PyPI is a neat trick.

- ChatGPT Containers can now run bash, pip/npm install packages, and download files https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/26/chatgpt-containers/ - in which I reverse engineered and documented a massive new feature of ChatGPT that OpenAI hadn't announced or documented anywhere

I remain very proud of my current open source projects too - https://datasette.io and https://llm.datasette.io and https://sqlite-utils.datasette.io and a whole lot more: https://github.com/simonw/simonw/blob/main/releases.md

Are you ready to say none of that is "novel or compelling", in good faith?

If we revisit these posts in a week, a month and then a year my question is: was it useful? Are others building off of this, still?

My is answer right now is: you can't answer that question yet and the fact that you are looking for immediate validation showcases you're just building random things. Which is great if that's what you want to do. But is it truly novel or compelling? Given you just move on to the next thing, there seems to be a lack of direction and in that regard I would say: no.

Just because you're doing more doesn't mean anything unless it's truly useful for you or others. I just don't think that's the case here. It's a new of form of move fast and break things. And while that can have net positives, we also are very aware it has many net negatives.

My major open source projects get a lot of use. I wouldn't classify them as "just random things".

I don't think you're familiar with my work at all.

In my view your open source projects don't align with what you've, mostly, written about. This is in the context of your AI posts. I am familiar with your work and my perspective is still the same. You can think whatever you want, but let's call a spade a spade: I'm not the lone wolf with this perspective. Because, as can be viewed in this thread, others have a similar opinion.

I'm very happy with the quality of my writing on LLMs.

I finally turned a corner last year where I’m generally pleased with how well my older posts hold up rather than wishing I’d done better.

edited: quote misattributed

It’s called the market. If you can compete while providing better life balance, go ahead and compete with those bad companies

It's called the market. If you can compete while not employing eight year olds on your assembly lines and dumping carcinogens in the river, go ahead and compete with those bad companies.

We had it good as software developers. Now, we can't be just code monkeys anymore.. Don't be mad. It's just the way it works.

> It’s called the market. If you can compete while providing better life balance, go ahead and compete with those bad companies

With friends like you, who needs enemies? Imagine if we said that about everything. Go ahead and start a garment factory with unlocked exit doors and see if you can compete against these bad garment companies. Go ahead and start your own coal mines that pay in real money and not funny money only redeemable at the company store. Go ahead and start your own factory and guarantee eight hours work, eight hours sleep, eight hours recreation. It is called a market, BRO‽

Working conditions have always been way worse than what we have in 2026. Our ancestors didn't have it good.

The point is we have to fight for better working conditions, not just for ourselves but for our coworkers and future generations.

It's called the market. Get back to work, slave.

We are more slaves to governments and tax authorities than companies we work for

That was me quoting the Harvard Business Review article.

apologies, comment withdrawn

> You don’t have to keep churning out multiple blog posts a day, every day.

How do you know that? You don't think he's being paid for all this marketing work?

I'm paid by my GitHub sponsors, who get a monthly summary of what I've been writing about on the basis that I don't want to put a paywall on my content but I'm happy for people to pay me to send them less stuff.

I also make ~$600/month from the ads on my site - run by EthicalAds.

I don't take payment to write about anything. That goes against my principals. It would also be illegal in the USA (FTC rules) if I didn't disclose it - and most importantly it would damage my credibility as a writer, which is the thing I value most.

The big potential money maker here is private consulting based on the expertise (and credibility) I've developed and demonstrated over time. I should do more of that!

I have a set of disclosures here: https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures

Accusing people of being paid shill from a new account. Ironically.