It accomplishes many things - specifically granting entertainment, pleasure, etc that practitioners like.

> It seems to me that you are starting from the viewpoint that everything has to prove its worth before you accept it

I'm starting with the viewpoint that there are literally thousands of various different practices out there have have existed for a long time and have been practiced by many people. Many of these are complete bullshit. How do you filter out the good from the bad/useless?

> even if millions of people before you have found it fulfilling and worthwhile

Millions of people have found many many different things fulfilling and worthwhile over the ages, some of these things we've since realized are bullshit/bad. Do you accept every single belief/practice based on how popular it has been?

> If you had never read a book before, and someone was trying to convince you to try it, what could they point to that would fulfill all your criteria?

They could say: it's entertaining/interesting/pleasurable, they could say that knowledge/insights are contained in books, that different/interesting perspectives and other people's thoughts are contained in books (which are objective facts), etc. Saying 'it makes you smarter' is vague and unconvincing.

Maybe you should actually share a link if you're so sure, instead of crying about being antagonized?

What are the objective benefits of meditation - what is the exact/specific process and what specifically does it accomplish?

I can see how being in a silent reflective state and similar practices could have various effects and benefits (not that I know specifically what those are) - but what separates me zoning out in the shower/on the bus from actual meditation? How is 'guided' meditation when you're actively listening to someone else even the same thing?

Whenever I ask my meditating/'spiritual' friends about these things the response is basically vague undecipherable gibberish and allusions that it is unexplainable to someone like me who is not ready to accept the truths lol.

Though it seems to work best when context is minimized. Once the code passes a certain complexity/size it starts making very silly errors quite often - the same exact code it wrote in a smaller context will come out with random obvious typos like missing spaces between tokens. At one point it started writing the code backwards (first line at the bottom of the file, last line at the top) :O.

> which works equally well on everyone’s machine

Why are you so sure it runs equally well on everyone's machine? Even big popular TUIs like Claude Code do not really accomplish this.

Also - claude (~the best coding agent currently imo) will make mistakes, sometimes many of them - tell it to test the code it writes and make sure it's working - I've generally found its pretty good at debugging/testing and fixing it's own mistakes.

I feel like this problem was far less prevalent a few months/weeks ago (before gemini-3?).

Using it for research/learning purposes has been pretty amazing though, while claude code is still best for coding based on my experience.

Also, if the current level of AI investment and valuations aren't justified by market demand (I believe so), many of these people/companies are getting more money than they would without the unreasonable hype.

At the end of the day it comes down to who the decision makers are and how they are incentivized to act. As a simple example - company X has product C, and they set a goal of increasing usage of feature F (of product C). Currently this feature F completely sucks and users don't want to use it - so the idea is to improve it and thus increase usage.

There are 2 ways of increasing usage:

1) Make the feature F more useful/better.

2) Force/push your users to use feature F, by aggressively marketing it, and pushing it within the product surfaces, making it non-optional, etc. and other dark patterns.

Option (1) is hard to do - it requires deep understanding of the product, user needs, the related tech, etc. It requires close tactical collaboration between product and engineering.

Option (2) is easy to do - it requires ~zero innovative thinking, very surface-level understanding of the problem, and relies purely on dark patterns and sketchy marketing tricks. You can almost completely ignore your engineers and any technical debt when following this approach.

If your decision makers are imposter PMs and marketing/sales people - they will almost always choose option 2. They will increase the 'apparent usage' of this feature in the short term, while reducing overall customer satisfaction increasing annoyance, and reducing the company's overall reputation. This is exactly how many 'growth' teams operate. Short term benefit/gaming of metrics for long term loss/reputational damage. Their success metrics are always short-term and linked directly to bonuses - long term effects of these kinds of strategies are ~always completely ignored.

Engineering and business value go hand-in-hand in a healthy tech/engineering business.

A business that was built on great/innovative engineering, became successful, and then got taken over by various impostors and social manipulators, who's primary goal is gaming various internal metrics for their own gain, is not a healthy business.

It doesn't count if 99% of the meetings/negotiations happen remotely if the last one happens in person? ok

This is your original statement exactly:

> "The Bay Area is special because of said history/staying power - which has systemic downstream advantages that *cannot be replicated*."