A one-pager begs of you to find the foundational value simply - no fooling yourself with a multitude of prospects and complexity.

The separable aspect makes explicit the need to build the foundation to stand on its own. You can't lean on the branches prematurely as if features are solid ground.

The single-defining constraint forces one to conceive and recognize the single-most fundamental functionality - and its shape, and its abilities; its character.

But you say yourself you "have to consciously remind [yourself]" it isn't real. The Uncanny Valley is not applicable when true subjective realness is imparted.

https://account.brave.com/?intent=checkout&product=origin

I'm just repeating this from another comment deeper-in. @microflash https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47833071#47843941

Brave's features don't bother me nearly as much as some people. It's privacy-oriented, I don't mind. Crypto isn't just an obtuse deal-breaker. Though it all begs the question how exactly monetization occurs.

According to Grok:

1. Opt-in ads that Brave serves and is paid for. "Ads are matched on-device using local browsing data—no profiling or data leaves your device, unlike Big Tech ads."

2. Subscriptions to premium features.

3. Revenue on Brave wallet fees.

These are also tasks the AI can succeed at rather trivially.

Better completions is not as sexy, but in pretending agents are great engineers it's an amazing feature often glossed over.

Another example is automatic test generation or early correctness warnings. If the AI can suggest a basic test and I can add it with the push of a button - great. The length (and thus complexity) of tests can be configured conservatively relative to the AI of the day. Warnings can just be flags in the editors spotting obvious mistakes. Off-by-one errors for example, which might go unnoticed for a while, would be an achievable and valuable notice.

Also, automatic debugging and feeding the raw debugger log into an AI to parse seems promising, but I've done little of it.

...And go from there - if a well-crafted codebase and an advanced model using it as context can generate short functions well, then by all means - scale that up with discretion.

These problems around the AI coding tools are not at all special - it's a classic case of taking the new tool too far too fast.

The FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff.

> recent

That’s great you point out the importance of long term trends, I shouldn’t even have to articulate my point now.

But why not go deeper anyways? Market cap for Bitcoin is a proxy for hashrate, which is a measure of security. Steadily increasing floor across its entire lifespan.

The expertise relevant in blockchain are economics/game-theory and cryptography - software engineering is to cryptocurrency what typing is to writing.

The law can come in and add friction to corruption, along with everything else, but it is only by returning to the culture in which crypto was founded that you will get anything of value - regulations or not.

What the skeptics fail to realize is that they often occupy just as much, if not more of a ‘team mindset’ than those engaging in the space. Their skepticism becomes more like the failed D.A.R.E. program to reduce adolescent drug use by exaggerating the virtues of abstinence and the worst case scenarios. And ironically, they can’t even articulate the worst parts, because they never engaged enough to have a deep understanding.

If you really want to find the deep dark secrets of crypto, no group will do it better than devout followers or developers of competing projects. I have read far more useful takedowns and warnings from people heavily engaged with and passionate about crypto currencies than the cynics are even capable of.

Crypto is a lot like politics - people feel entitled to their opinion on it whether they possess sophistication, competence, open mindedness or not.