<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: srbsa</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=srbsa</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 06:54:31 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=srbsa" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by srbsa in "Ask HN: Why are so many "AI evangelists" posting such insufferable content?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Don't you remember the time that people were solving the 'Strait of Hormuz' crisis on LinkedIn with lines drawn on maps and showing their 'problem-solving' skills?<p>... or was it just my feed?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 18:55:31 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48765817</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48765817</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48765817</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[How much of code review friction comes from context outside the codebase?]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I analysed 10K open-source PRs for something I'm building and found that anywhere between 42% and 67% of review friction is due to context beyond the codebase.<p>From a workflow PoV, how annoying is the manual context synthesis to curate the prompt/agents.md? Is review a solved problem for teams with review agents, or is it now the real blocking step?</p>
<hr>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48561881">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48561881</a></p>
<p>Points: 1</p>
<p># Comments: 0</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 20:50:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48561881</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48561881</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48561881</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[The AI coding optimized for the part of engineering that hurt the least]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://www.ardel.io/blog/the-3am-problem">https://www.ardel.io/blog/the-3am-problem</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48437438">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48437438</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 0</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 18:36:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://www.ardel.io/blog/the-3am-problem</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48437438</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48437438</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by srbsa in "Parallelize yourself, not your agents"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Is it arguing that we need to supervise better than building systems that enable agents to make better decisions?<p>I would argue that unique decisions should only be made once (I'm building it). It is a gated mechanism, where confidence is 0<x<y<1
>y - decision delegated 
from x to y - rapid decision, upto 5 lines of context and simplified ask
<x - full context for elaborate decision<p>Everything <y is fed back for making decisions. Plus, decisions are logged with fragments/context used.<p>By Amdahl's law, you'd have to automate 99.9% of decision-making to reach 1000x, 100x is at 99%. That's near impossible unless y is closer to 0, i.e., near unbound delegation.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 17:48:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48402075</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48402075</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48402075</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ask HN: Heavy coding-agent users what's your context plumbing? Where it fails?]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>From what I've seen it sits at three levels:<p>Layer 1: Personal (memory MCP tools, personal *.md files)
Layer 2: Repo (CLAUDE or AGENTS.md, in-repo docs)
Layer 3: Org-wide (Unblocked, Glean, or similar)<p>Most people have strong opinions on 1 and 2. Layer 3 seems underinvested.<p>Curious, do you think 1 and 2 make 3 redundant, or would a strong 3 mean you'd stop/reduce patching with 1 and 2?</p>
<hr>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48397102">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48397102</a></p>
<p>Points: 4</p>
<p># Comments: 2</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:24:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48397102</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48397102</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48397102</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by srbsa in "Ask HN: What could happen if human beings become obsolete?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I believe we have been there before; we responded with a similar emotional-visceral response during the printing press (replication of information), the industrial revolution (human labour), and the internet (distribution of information).<p>Now it's AI (cognition/human judgement); technological gains solve the bottlenecks. This is yet another layer. Amdahl's law.<p>I believe human societies will be a bell-curve distribution of all of them. The scary fraction will wield power/wealth; the indifferent will be the largest distribution, followed by the smallest fraction of benevolent people.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2026 09:13:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334250</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334250</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334250</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by srbsa in "Amdahl's Law for LLM generated code"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Thank you! This changed how I was thinking about my product: a knowledge harness for coding agents. While I was discussing incidents & context-switching tax, the structural compounding is likely the real win.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 16:12:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48325184</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48325184</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48325184</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ask HN: Do coding agents need cross-tool org knowledge? Or, just good to have?]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I've been talking to engineers, mostly in large teams. While they love cross-surface search with Glean, they still assimilate and curate the context for agents manually. It is especially useful during incidents and new onboarding.<p>I've been building a knowledge substrate for engineering teams that is native to coding agents and pulls from all connected tools. It returns cross-source, fresh, credible evidence in agent-native form without context bloat. It's effective and efficient enough to deploy for smaller teams.<p>My ICP is growing teams/startups between 15 and 80 engineers with good agentic coding adoption. I've been trying to reach out to these founders/teams.  A very low number of conversations materialise, and the ones that do perceive it as only 'good to have'.<p>Have I been building vitamin?</p>
<hr>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297996">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297996</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 0</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 18:00:06 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297996</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297996</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297996</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by srbsa in "WhiteHat Jr’s founder files $2.6M defamation suit against critic"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The issue could be a matter of outrage, though, here in India the FOMO by parents (and students) is rather structural - been on since forever whether it is likes of Aptech/NIIT since late 90s.<p>Here are some pointers: 
High-school science grds that seek STEM undergrad education in India is over 5-million annually. 
Commerce & Humanities is looked down upon as barely has any value in terms career prospects (Some top high-schools don't even offer Humanities). 
For STEM subjects, over 5-million aspirants compete for less than 100K 'meaningful' seats - cuthroat yet?<p>FOMO in the failed education system is structural. Else to blame companies from byjus, to unacademy, to upgrad, all of which claim to deliver on "Career Changing Education" at high-markups, is lame!</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2020 05:50:54 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25183957</link><dc:creator>srbsa</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25183957</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25183957</guid></item></channel></rss>