chadash

As an intellectual exercise, sure.

I don't have a crystal ball, but in my opinion, if you are asking in the context of employment, I think it's very hard to know, and I'd probably recommend against it if you are starting from scratch. Right now, I think that having experience with coding helps me work much more effectively alongside LLMs. Given the progress in the last five years though, I can't be certain that I will be needed in another 10 years. I already recommend against majoring in computer science with the goal of becoming a software engineer. I don't think that the role will go away, but the number of people needed might be much smaller in 10 years, and I wouldn't want to be a new grad in that kind of market.

> If you already know how to code, do you keep learning?

I'm sure others feel differently, but personally, I find it quite annoying to learn new things right now. 5 years ago, if someone came out with a new tool for say, durable workflows, or a new JS framework, I knew that they poured many days of labor and love into the project. They spent many hours thinking through what they were building and the tradeoffs and edge cases. Now, there's just an avalanche of new projects out there and it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Personally, I'm more focused on developing soft skills right now.

I think the bigger issue (like many things in software engineering) is a management issue. Once upon a time, I could take a look at the final output of a project and if it looked like a Ferrari on the outside, I could have some confidence that there was a good engine under the hood. OF COURSE THIS WASNT ALWAYS TRUE, but something that looked good, or was performant, or whatever, was a decent proxy for the code underneath being good. And with a smart human, there were ancillary things. Having spent 20 hours coding something, they probably thought through the edge cases that their manager, or product team hadn’t considered.

With AI, everyone’s output looks like a Ferrari, so it is hard to know what the internals are like.

A lot of people will probably look at this and say “well you need better management”, but better management has always been elusive in software engineering. Furthermore, reviewing AI generated code is soul crushing work and I don’t know who wants to do it.

In my guesstimate the number of good engineering managers out there is actually very very small and in practice, the best managers that I’ve seen are the ones who don’t think they are good managers, so they just set a very high hiring bar and hire people who don’t need much management.

I have worked with many lawyers in my career. The bad ones will look at a contract and tell you fifty things that can be improved. Meanwhile, you take the same contract to a really great lawyer and they tell you that's it's not worth fighting over the changes and to just keep it as is. It's kind of like how a beginner or intermediate software engineer might tell you how you can build out a k8s or auto-scaling fargate cluster for your project and a really senior engineer might look at the same thing and explain that it's not worth worrying about scalability right now.

I find that when I feed contracts to ChatGPT (which I do all the time) it will try to find 50 things wrong with it. For example, as a test, i fed chatgpt an employment offer from a US government agency. It came back with 1152 words and 14 recommended (some of them substantial) changes. Meanwhile, any half-decent employment attorney would probably laugh at me if I asked them to redline an employment offer from the State Department.

> I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman.

Why is it a strawman? I can sell you software for $100 once or I can sell it to you for $10/month. I don't think anyone is suggesting that I'm gonna sell it for $10 once though.

In particular, Desert Ant is saying their software is free for 100k active devices per SDK. That's likely a lot more users than most peoples' side projects. Given that, I'm guessing that $50k (even annually) is not a crazy number (yes, obviously $50k is not what a consumer would ever pay).

I definitely understand the appeal of the desire to “buy it once”, but I think there are a few issues:

- almost no software is static. Look at a package like python Requests and even though it does the simplest thing and has barely changed from a user perspective, it gets updated all the time. This is true for most software. This is doubly true for something like local AI models where both the software and the hardware are changing constantly. Subscriptions motivate sellers to keep their software up to date.

- If I’m an app developer, the idea that I can try something out for $X/month is very appealing versus making an upfront investment of (let’s say) $X*20. This is doubly true for something like local models where I will almost certainly want something new when the models improve.

- To add to the first point, I work at a startup. No one asks questions when I want $20/month licenses. But let’s say I want something that’s gonna be in the 5 figure range annually. If I go to my CFO and ask for $50k upfront and then we implement something and the project fails, I look like an idiot. If I ask for $2000/mo budget for something and then we try it for two months and it fails, no one cares. Subscriptions are just safer in this sense.

Initially, you picked the Multi-ZA RDS db.t3.2xlarge instance because you figured "eh i have credits anyway". Two years later, someone looks at this and says "hey, this is expensive and I bet we can do everything we need on a machine half the size". But then they think "if i downsize it and that works, i'll get a thumbs up emoji on a slack thread. If i downsize it and it causes problems, i'll draw the ire of the whole team. I better leave it alone." And the truth is... by the time your company hits the end of those credits, you're probably at the point where that savings isn't gonna do much. Or maybe you are out of business.

And that is how almost every successful company that uses AWS eventually ends up paying six-figures or more annually.

Sometimes models are vastly underpriced. Fable is an example. I can easily spend hundreds of dollars using it to code. On the other hand, if I'm looking for AI to review a contract for any obvious mistakes, I don't really care if I spend $0.01 vs $1.00, even if the difference is only marginal. I'll pay quite a bit more for something that's just a little bit better.

Same thing with design, in many cases. When the absolute dollar amounts are small, I'm happy to pay more for even marginally better quality.

If I’m using this towards something that makes me money, I’d pay a lot more, but it really depends on context. In general, I’ll spend $5 like it’s nothing, $20 if it’s nothing and it’s for a business expense, and probably $50-100 for a design scheme for my (quite small) business. I don’t know that I’m a representative sample, but I’ll put my money where my mouth is, because I just added an extra $5 to play around more.

Btw, it’s a really innovative interface. It’s fun and very different from other tools I’ve seen. I quite like it but it’s also a bit confusing. Feel free to contact me if you want customer feedback (info in profile).

To the parent commenter's point, we don't have enough information to know if that's true.

EDIT: the founder is on this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933905) providing more info and explains that adding expenses on would be too burdensome.

Furthermore, a lot of my workflow is now done on remote servers (i love exe.dev) where claude code is sandboxed to an extent (it can still cause damage, just not to my main computer's file system). When I'm configuring those, i have a setup script that installs all of my vim files just the way i like them, so vim behaves exactly the same on a remote server as it does locally. I can edit things as needed. I can also access claude code on those servers as well. So working on my remote machine feels a lot like workin locally [1].

[1] I'm aware that i can setup cursor or vs code to access SSH servers, but it's just not as easy and doesn't feel as natural, IMO. There's something i like about needing to call `ssh remote-server` first.

I'm not defending the UN here, but I don't think that the Secretary General is the person who decided to put Google Tags on their website. I'd be shocked if he even vaguely knows what a Google Tag is.

A lot of people gladly pay humans to launder their clothes, so the market is there. But the current iteration of wash/dry combo machines doesn’t solve the main issue. I don’t mind transferring my clothes from the washer to the dryer, because that takes 60 seconds. It’s folding and putting away the clothes that makes laundry a chore.

I think a reasonable metric would be "you have 2 years to sell your assets and convert to cash (or something super liquid like treasuries)". This accounts for people who hold things like farm land or real estate that can't just be liquidated tomorrow. By this Metric, the values for many of the billionaires out there are real. Bill Gates, for example, hardly owns a significant stake in Microsoft anymore, but he does have lots of illiquid assets like farmland and real estate. Brin/Page/Bezos still have significant stakes in their companies, but the companies stand on their own at this point and I doubt that shares would go down a ton if any of them liquidated over the course of a year. Zuckerberg probably can't sell his meta shares without a reasonable decrease in value, so there'd be some haircut, but it's still an incredibly valuable company without him.

But Musk is at a different level. I can't imagine him selling his stakes in his companies without the stocks plummeting more than 50%.

As a hiring manager, I will immediately prioritize hiring graduates of that school. I can teach someone who knows how to code how to use Claude Code. I find the other way around quite difficult.

Iran knows that the US population really really doesn’t want a ground invasion. Right now, we have lost a handful of lives from missiles hitting US bases, but it’s not the same as a ground war.

Cuba, however, would very much get a ground invasion if they start striking the US with missiles. It’s not even a question. And I also assume their leaders are not religious fanatics with any interest in martyrdom.

The crazy thing is we often cite an Apple Tax, but in this case, I think they actually have a cheaper product.