Seconded!

In fact I would posit this is the central crux of the post: OP does not believe those LLM evangelists were ever good programmers.

As others have already noted[1], many well-known excellent programmers - including yourself! and now even Linus! - would beg to differ.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46610143

> So, this is how I’m thinking about AI in 2026. Enough of the predictions. I’m done reacting to hypotheticals propped up by vibes. The impacts of the technologies that already exist are already more than enough to concern us for now…

SPOT ON, let us all take inspiration. "The impacts of the technologies that already exist are already more than enough to concern us for now"!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46492803

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Yep by a significant margin in fact https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2025/streaming-reaches-h...

No, not even close. According to Nielsen from this year, Netflix has only 7.5% of total TV hours and "Warner Bros + Discovery" clocks in at 1.5% ("HBO" as an independent entity is not tracked), for a total of 9%. A whopping 16% to go before crossing that 25% threshold.

https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2025/streaming-reaches-h...

Those hackers you're so lamenting are gonna make it, but you aren't.

Nailed it, came here to say this.

If anything, this entire post should just be titled "AI PEBKAC".

Don't blame the tool because you're using it wrong.

Spot on. Look at it this way: would SJ have allowed this to happen? Absolutely not. And if it somehow had happened while he were still there, he would've unquestionably (and quickly) fired the responsible parties.

Does it also follow that black holes in our universe contain universes internally, beyond their event horizons?! Seems like it should. Mind-blowing.

I feel you've misunderstood the moment. There is no "over". This is it.

From my understanding of the post, this was the initial screening phase as it was in response to OP's application. In other words, this is what every candidate who passes the application screen (the weakest one) is sent.

Let's say they have 100 candidates for this role. A proper code review here should take ~45 minutes to an hour. Even 15% of the candidates requesting a full code review - regardless of synchronicity - represents a 11.25-to-15 hour time commitment from the hiring team. For the initial screen. That is asinine. No proper organization would accept such a large time sink for so few candidates at this phase.

As I've said already multiple times in this thread, OP very clearly does not understand the asynchronous relationship at play here, and then based much of their interactions & interpretations on this misunderstanding.

> "I would like to know what kind of response I could expect..." - This is also established from the beginning: you can expect either a "Looks good, let's do some interviews" or a "Sorry, not interested," based on the code you submit. They can't narrow down the choices prior to your submission, because they're grading your submission, not your proposal document with an extensive list of details that they already told you they're mostly ambivalent to.

Absolutely spot on, and you ID it later with "Main character syndrome", but it is so very clear from this post's tone & content that OP expected a symmetric outlay of effort & focus from the company's side. They thought they were the main character.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding that seems to have predicated a lot of their ultimate response: they feel as if they were entitled to much more effort from the company than they received. Such is often the case with strong entitlement, it's nearly impossible for the person suffering it to see it.