I've built a lot with LLM's, my experience sort of but not really tracks that. I've had to course correct a few bad abstractions but the larger the code base becomes the better it seems to be at reusing things. Maybe this is because of types, or spec-first development (with OpenAPI), or black box integration testing - but also maybe not. But generally I have to think about the abstractions and let the LLM fill in the details with rare exception.

The limit here I think the ancestor comments are getting at is cognitive load, which is real and measured. We only have so much memory to devote to a "stack" when executing, and it's usually quite constrained.

The tool assumes so much. That it is fine to kill a process itself versus just asking you to kill the process. That everyone MUST have passwords in their home directory. It's all meaningless without providing the thing it is running and so no activity is technically safe.

Why do people even get the agent to run the commands it asks to run? You can solve the entire threat vector by running it yourself and giving the agent the output. Claude practically only needs things like sed, awk, and grep. It's a pattern matcher. It's a waste of yours (and its) time to have it run your project.

It is completely feasible, and the battery life - amazing. Even when running a whole pile of Kubernetes services.

Most folks use frameworks because it's easier than learning how to build it all yourself - things are done for you instead. This niche is now getting eroded by AI and low-code substantially.

Couple that with my experience maintaining frontends that are far too complex for their use cases - e.g. do we really need SPA's, state sync, and reusable components for our admin tool that doesn't reuse components?

This leads me to think there's been bloat here for at least a decade. So, while vibe coding will also lead to bloat, it's easier to work with, and arguably higher value than paying for a specific framework.

It's a tragedy in life that things that are useful don't always get valued, instead being used as a stepping stone for progress, but I'm not sure that has a solution.

The internet has seen success with social media content moderation and so it seems natural enough that an application could exist for web traffic itself. Hosts being able to "downvote" malicious traffic, and some sort of decay mechanism given IP's recycling. This exists in a basic sense with known TOR exit nodes and known AWS, GCP IP's, etc.

That said, we probably don't have the right building blocks yet, IP's are too ephemeral, yet anything more identity-bound is a little too authoritarian IMO. Further, querying something for every request is probably too heavy.

Fun to think about, though.

- Like you mentioned, it helps me learn more about a topic/explore it more deeply, I usually begin with an intuition and then explore outwards.

- Folks positively mention my articles - both current connections and new connections.

- They sometimes spark interesting discussion which helps refine my knowledge further.

> What kinds of posts actually worked (for learning, career, network, opportunities)?

- Hard to say, I don't have a high signal here. Usually just having some content for people to skim was enough, but folks would tend to mention nearly random articles depending on their interests.

> Any practical format that lowers the bar (length, cadence, themes)?

- I'm not a great blogger in that I have no established cadence. I didn't want pressure to deliver crap (biweekly), nor did I want necessarily to put posts on too high of a pedestal (monthly+).

> If you were starting today, what would you do differently?

- Highly recommend going with simple tech. A static site based on Markdown does wonders. Offload discussion threads to sites like HN or reddit - the comment section of your links.

Cooperatives distribute the losses but it is still a money pit.

They can do this because they are operating in other areas with predatory prices, giving them the ability to operate at a loss, and relying on the fact that at least some of those areas are not being challenged by non-predators.

Everybody seems to be playing the game right in this scenario. Interesting to try to come up with a good counter.

(facepalm)

I already had an RSS feed, must be some Jekyll magic.

This is nothing new - we’ve watched this same story play out across many industries in our lifetime, as well as by empires rising and falling throughout our history.

These days, the empires may be smaller - e.g. products, teams, startups - but the pattern is still the same. If every move needs a meeting and every idea a committee, you’re not short on talent, you’re just tangled in control.

Here's three ways I've found to break out of this:

Cycle Leadership: To avoid entrenched thinking, cycle leadership between projects. This demonstrates both upward mobility as well as the idea that growth is continuous, and nobody is ever done.

Institutionalize Experimentation: Embrace the “how might we” mentality to continuously experiment and iterate. Form hypotheses and find the lowest cost way to validate them.

Subordinate to Metrics: Rather than following people, follow metrics - the measures that prove you’re moving in the right direction. This shifts teams from control towards collaboration, based on a set of values shared by both the market and the team.

As they say, in life the only constant is change. How is your organization tackling it? Are your teams builders, or bullies? I'd love to hear about your challenges and solutions.