> Vite+ will manage your global Node.js runtime and package manager.

What? Why?

You’re really going all-in if you adopt this; and… for what? A bit of cozy tooling around existing standard ways of doing things?

Ok, sure; I like tools, like vite.

…but even for an opinionated tool, this is extraordinarily opinionated. Like next.js

Im skeptical.

The pitch of bringing things together seems strong, but did we go too far here?

Reading reviews of people using this didn't really convince me.

It seems to be running on the coat tails of the vite name, rather than its own merit.

Here’s what they said, $$$ aside:

> That’s no longer true. We’ve entered a different regime, where spending more tokens generally results in better results. We call this “compounding correctness” — the more tokens you spend on getting a task correct

> Compounding correctness flips the calculus. If more token spend leads to better outcomes, then you’re going to want to spend a lot of time running tokens. Which sure as hell sounds like tokenmaxxing to me! The original incentives to tokenmax are gone, but eventually folks will realize that a new and more powerful incentive has take its place.

> There were ways to get loops to work, but it was hard. You had to think a lot about how to prompt the agent, which in turn required a pretty deep familiarity with how these things work.

> Now, though, it’s easy. Compounding correctness makes it easy

Go on, tell me I’m quoting the OP out of context.

It’s pretty clear this person believes in compounding correctness, while other, more serious people (1) are perhaps more skeptical.

..and Armins company owns pi. You can’t get much more all in on AI.

Compounding correctness sounds cool, but the real examples of people spending lots of tokens are not compounding correctness; they are wide parallel exploration; like Mythos. The OP is confused, and wrong; they’ve made some basic (flawed) assumptions, and based their entire reasoning on them.

…and are selling AI things. How surprising.

[1] - https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/6/23/the-coming-loop/

The more I play in this space, the more I’m drawn to the idea that some kind of back tracking constraint solver is a better solution than then the current naive while loop / brute force approach here.

The results I see are similar to what you get from a greedy brute force constraint solver; solves trivial problems, sometimes solves harder problems after a long time, takes too long to solve really hard problems; solutions are increasingly non optimal on average as complexity goes up.

We have so much existing knowledge about building good constraint solvers, if we could just figure out how to apply it here somehow.

The loop is basically then a while loop:

While (tests fail) { trigger agent: spec, failures list }

for bugs, write failing tests.

Its basically TDD.

Loops do nothing useful beyond making the “spec -> code” step more “hands off” and let you be confident that the code you write does what is intended.

Obviously you see the issue: writing the loop harness is > effort than not having it…

…but the idea is that you run “spec first” and are totally hands off on the code, just updating the validation step and then waiting while the agent iterates over and over to solve for some solution that passes the loop harness.

People suggest that it is possible to go, eg. directly figma/jira to harness via (random tool here), saving even more time and invoking even fewer humans, but thats currently, as far as I can tell, actually just hype.

No one is actually doing that effectively.

Loops are currently carefully hand crafted, which makes them tedious and of questionable value imo.

Tldr: you're doing it wrong but I will not show you how to do it right. I also did not run the bench using my approach but it definitely “vibes better” to me, and I reject your actual research paper.

Come on, show us some actual skills.

That one you use all the time looks a hell of a lot like “I wont a deterministic shell script for something a skill saying ‘run the shell script’”

Is that what you do? How much time do you spend on them? How do you stop the agent from making a bunch of very similar skills? How do you deal with the explosion of the total number of skills impacting your token use? Do you use skills from github, or is that bad practice? Why?

So many unanswered questions; so little content. :/

It is clearly widely and indisputably demonstrated that many high achieving children in this situation are failures as adults because they never learn to put effort in.

Terrace tao is on the record writing about his experiences with it, and how it was only his failure in initial college admission shocked him into achieving what he has.

Ie. The point you are making is widely, clearly documented as the naive experience of someone who has not had to achieve at a high level.

> Coaching junior employees to neither ask me for help the instant they're confused nor spin their wheels for two weeks without asking for help is a COMMON thread.

You're a manager. I am sure you have a predictable set of responsibilities, constraints and want a “high performing” team.

Hows that working out for you?

Most advice I, personally, have seen, like this, comes from managers who want to have high performing teams, not ones that have high performing teams.

Its straight out of Be A Manager playbooks.

Whatever, you do you; but, I will emphasise that you are fooling yourself if you believe your experience is universal.

Most very successful people puts lots of effort in.

I… don't know what else to say. If you don't believe that, you are simply, objectively rallying against an extremely large well documented body of knowledge and work on the topic.

Companies will smartly balance the amount of work allocated to people.

…and then they will push you to take on more work.

High achievers, across the board, consistently demonstrate putting more effort in.

Its just a bitter pill to swallow for some people.

> You may be wondering where this “extra” time is going to come from. You’re already committed up to your eyeballs. …We’ll talk about time management, task queue management, diff queue management, and other topics that will accelerate your progress.

Is just corporate dog whistling.

If you are over committed, no amount of time management will solve your problem. Using AI wont solve your problem.

You have a fixed amount of time and too much work?

Work. More. Hours.

Thats the real game; spend extra time outside of your normals hours doing extra.

Congratulations, you’re an “A”.

Makes no difference; your resilience against restructures is not correlated with how much respect you have from senior developers.

That shouldn't be your goal.

There are many places that do what they call “data driven” performance evaluation (translation: avoid being racist by looking only at anonymised numbers) and they do, indeed, look at 40 completed tasks and go: we will keep this one.

The strongest advice for a new starter is: at your specific company ask what you will be reviewed on, and do your best to do whatever that is.

Generic advice is a dime a dozen; don't fall in the trap of assuming [generic advice here] will apply to your specific workplace.

Many people dislike blazor and it has had its reputation sullied by Microsoft treating it as “new webforms” (yes, they do. It is literally the official migration path for legacy webforms projects).

The pro of blazor, arguably, is c# and the .Net ecosystem.

If I personally had to choose, I wouldn't choose blazor over almost any other technology because I’ve had bad experiences with it.

Technically, they're very similar, but the devexp matters, in my oppinion.

High level generic advice from agents is often, in my experience significantly better, unmodified, than doing nothing.

Obviously its better to do it properly, but you know… opus 4.8 is a pretty great model.

You might be surprised at the quality of the planning, architecture and task breakdown that a simple prompt with some context hints can give you.

…at the end of the day, if I’m working with someone and they give me 6/10 plans based on AI instead of stupid/10 plans they dreamed up, or 0/10 plans they didn't even bother (or in too much of a hurry) to write; Ill take it.

Tragedy of the commons? /shrug

You gotta be pragmatic. It turns subpar contributors into useful contributors.

…but it’s than just that (in most cases; I am just lazy sometimes); but fundamentally there’s a limit to how much complexity people can comprehend.

We are good at working at high level abstractions, modules with clear apis that can be sprung to together into some kind of feature.

You don’t need to look inside the black box of the module if you trust the implementer; Ive never opened up the internals of a calendar be like “how does this work?”. I just don’t care. It’s a calendar. I use the api.

I think most people are using these tools in this way; very few people are having an agent write a plan, then a sub agent review it, no human in the loop. Those are for prototypes and are yolo cowboys using open claw and playing with the phones instead of working; we have a few at work, but their PRs are regularly rejected as slop.

…but, realistically; many people aren’t software architects. They may not even know coding patterns, forget architecture patterns.

Having an agent spit out generic software architecture is probably better than what they were producing before.

Writing a module / feature using generic architecture and planning is probably better than random code spaghetti right?

It’s easy to lament the loss of craft here, but at the end of the day, the models today do an ok job of this. The models of tomorrow will probably be better at it than many people.

Architecture is easy composed to actually implementing things. You just wave your hands from your ivory tower and say “more event sourcing”.

> They will come for finance, biology, law, marketing, all knowledge work. That's their stated goal and they're already teasing it with "ChatGPT for Health" and similar launches. They're working on "harnesses" for other fields, it's just a matter of time before we have "Claude Finance Analyst" or something.

…

> Beg to disagree. The models will learn good engineering principles at some point.

…

> Stop and think, don't try to predict the future using (bad) past examples.

Don't try to prediction the future based on the past.

Also, here is my doomsday prediction.

Thats kind of ironic.

Heres a more thoughtful take: everything is an s curve.

Things start out fast, then they slow down.

It happens in learning, in tech, in literally everything.

The question (unanswered) is where we are in that curve.

Will they get better? Yes.

A lot better? A bit better? /shrug

It’s the same use case with a different api.

A typical (meaningful) example might be communication between threads or actors in a single process, or idempotent tests.

As with SQLite, an external xxx that does this for you is certainly better, etc. but it’s convenient sometimes, to have an application that doesn’t go “now before you run this install Postgres…”.

It’s seldom useful for a web app where you control everything.

Vendors didn’t have to do shit to support the platform, they just got better performance if they did (like factorio).

There is something of a difference between “all your stuff will still work, at comparable performance” and arm windows which (as evidenced by all the vendor promises) you can’t really currently say with prism.

I would describe prism as “surprisingly rubbish considering they had an example of how to do it right” and “your app probably doesn’t run because of drivers or some ??? compatibility thing”.

Am I misremembering? I remember being blown away by Rosetta.

Prism… yeah. Toggle the settings. Disable jit. Disable FP. …bin laptop. Get an intel laptop.

We have b2b enterprise solutions for sharing text files; we have 1st party, security approved methods for distributing source code that are fundamentally business friendly and compatible with using skills.

MCP might have a place, but claiming it exists because you need a more “enterprise” solution to distributing prompts is just enormously difficult to justify.

(Unless, as the other peer comment indicates, you're not actually trying to make things better or useful, you're trying to sell access to your MCP server. I admit, I take it back; if shilling your company is all you care about maybe MCP is a better option)

Its not that hard.

You like it.

It feels good, and although you don't win a lot, you consistently win.

…buuut, its a trap.

As you put more money in, the win rate goes down.

You still mostly win when you put 50s in, but it hurts more when you lose, but its still a net gain…

So you start on bigger projects, unsupervised agents, multi agent workflows. You’re dropping 1000s in each time, and…

…and now, you start find yourself shouting at the slot machine.

Its great when it works, but interactions are stressful, because the stakes are higher and fails hurt more.

Screw this, you go back to smaller stakes. Its great.

…but now you're slower, you miss the big wins from big stakes.

So you go back.

…and you get angry. Again. And again. And again… and you’re still kind of winning, and the wins are great but the fails are Super Annoying, because they waste your time, your money, your attention.

It should Just Work but instead why the fuck did you rm -rf my project folder claude?

I think people arent stupid, but we are suckers, and we will dynamically balance the way we use a slot machine tool like this to the very edge of our tolerance for risk and failure.

…and that varies from person to person; but it makes everyone angry when they tip too far and fall into the “repeatedly pull slot machine arm angrily” trap.

Non deterministic tools will always be like this.

It’s like doom scrolling. We’re wired for it. Or at least I am.

So your costs scale with the number of users you have.

Thats an op ex that you can explain.

For tokens for developers its maybe closer, cost/outcome wise, to hiring an external consulting company to write your code; money paid scales with work done, no promise of delivery, arbitrary unpredictable external price changes.

Its not quite the same; though, similarly lucrative for consultants.

This is arbitrary nonsense.

What “big consultancy” has 5 developers?

What are you even talking about?