Not saying its not a cool thing to collect, well made watches are a very cool piece of engineering, I'm just curious if there's any "special" appeal outside of "i like this thing and have the money to enjoy it" :)

No real value is this comment, I'm just happy to share a moment over the brain-fuck that is Prolog (ironically Brainfuck made a whole lot more sense).

Do kids learn well when you only tell them what NOT to do? Of course not! You should be explaining how to do things correctly, and most importantly the WHY, as well as providing examples of both the "correct" and "incorrect" ways (also explaining why an example is incorrect).

https://xkcd.com/538/

The end-goal is to gain complete access to the system - the outcome (data theft or ransomware) is customers choice

I've had an ROG Zeph collecting dust for a couple years now, specifically for the reasons you described, which I now have a good reason to dig out and poke around in. Got my weekend sorted :)

    I'll preface this comment with: I am a recent startup owner (so only dev, which is important) and my entire codebase has been generated via Sonnet (mostly 3.7, now using 4.0). If you actually looked at the work I'm (personally) producing, I guess I'm more of a product-owner/project-manager as I'm really just overseeing the development.

    > I have yet to see an LLM-generated app not collapse under it’s own weight after enough iterations/prompts.

    There's a few crucial steps to make an LLM-generated app maintainable (by the LLM):

    - _have a very, very strong SWE background_; ideally as a "strong" Lead Dev, _this is critical_

    - your entire workflow NEEDS to be centered around LLM-development (or even model-specific):

      - use MCPs wherever possible and make sure they're specifically configured for your project

      - don't write "human" documentation; use rule + reusable prompt files

      - you MUST do this in a *very* granular but specialized way; keep rules/prompts very small (like you would when creating tickets)

      - make sure rules are conditionally applied (using globs); do not auto include anything except your "system rules"

      - use the LLM to generate said prompts and rules; this forces consistency across prompts, very important

      - follow a typical agile workflow (creating epics, tickets, backlogs etc)

      - TESTS TESTS AND MORE TESTS; add automated tools (like linters) EVERYWHERE you can

      - keep your code VERY modular so the LLM can keep a focused context, rules should provide all key context (like the broader architecture); the goal is for your LLM to only need to read or interact with files related to the strict 'current task' scope

      - iterating on code is almost always more difficult than writing it from scratch: provided your code is well architected, no single rewrite should be larger than a regular ticket (if the ticket is too large then it needs to be split up)

    This is off the top of my head so it's pretty broad/messy but I can expand on my points.

    LLM-coding requires a complete overhaul of your workflow so it is tailored specifically to an LLM, not a human, but this is also a massive learning curve (that take's a lot of time to figure out and optimize). Would I bother doing this if I were still working on a team? Probably not, I don't think it would've saved me much time in a "regular" codebase. As a single developer at a startup? This is the only way I've been able to get "other startup-y" work done while also progressing the codebase - the value of being able to do multiple things at a time, let the LLM and intermittently review the output while you get to work on other things.

    The biggest tip I can give: LLMs struggle at "coding like a human" and are much better at "bad-practice" workflows (e.g. throwing away large parts of code in favour of a total rewrite) - let the LLM lead the development process, with the rules/prompts as guardrails, and try stay out of it's way while it works (instead of saying "hey X thing didn't work, go fix that now") - hold its hand but let it experiment before jumping in.

Right now your comment reads like something off a conspiracy forum and has nothing to back it up - which is not something that warrants discussion (on HN).

I wouldn't, in my opinion:

Capitalism incentivizes selfishness at the detriment of others that are "playing the [capitalism] game" or anti-competitive practices. It also pushes people to hoard resources - think Tragedy of the Commons or anti-competitive practices in general. The incentive is to reduce the amount of resources available to competition while increasing your holdings, allowing you to repeat the loop but with higher chances of success.

Providing something others find useful seems like a lucky side effect that often isn't even true, there's a lot of industries who have no intention of providing something useful (like stock trading, short trading especially). Most companies are trying to reduce costs as much as possible, reducing the usefulness of their product/service to the lowest point that people will still pay for.

But I agree with your other points - just because capitalism breeds selfishness it doesn't mean all parties are going to the extremes.