There are successful people that failed many times before being successful. Somehow these days, previous failures and persistence seems to be ignored and they focus just on the luck you got on the 20th try.
122 karma · joined November 17, 2021
There are successful people that failed many times before being successful. Somehow these days, previous failures and persistence seems to be ignored and they focus just on the luck you got on the 20th try.
In my first 20 years of trials i made enough to support myself, i had multiple projects + consulting work that got me some money. I tried everything, but I got better and better on spotting what works.
I didn't chase unicorns, I chase things that I needed personally in my projects and also had an established market. I found out that building simpler, improved and niched versions of bigger products gives me a higher chance of making higher revenue faster. This was before the indie hacker movement started.
Eventually one of my many projects grew faster than previous trials and I knew something is there. 7 years later I had a 8 figure exit with a team of 20 people, 100% owned and fully bootstrapped.
Was luck involved? Maybe, but after 20 years of grinding was it more luck or persistence and continuous learning? How many opportunities for finding "luck" would someone that tried methodically for 20 years to launch a successful business will get?
The hardest part is locating the issue, if you point directly to it, you're not comparing the same thing by far, and they know it. This was just a stunt by them to get publicity, they knew what they were doing and many fell for it, including here.
This was like 2005-2006
This is the lazy guy path, is not the wise one.
I know senior developers that are very radical on some nonsense patterns they think are much better than others. If they see code that don't follow them, they say it's trash.
Even so, you can guide the LLM to write the code as you like.
And you are wrong, it's a lot on how people write the prompt.