The readme was very clearly AI-written (or at least heavily AI-assisted)... not saying that's a bad thing, and I agree it's fairly well written... but it is very obviously AI
k, I just looked through it for where the latest is. First of all, the earliest version were fully written by me, and then lightly edited with AI. The current state are as follows: intro sentences written by me, "why lightspeed" section too. Quickstart AI written, Features mostly written by me, but AI keeps interfering there. Design was also written by me several times, it also used to be much longer, but I just noticed AI put one a few paragraph of slop in there, I think that's the most egregious--shame on me for not caching it. So, if I look at the readme right now, I would say it's about 60% me. It can be better, I'll make the effort because it really bothers me if readmes are not (mostly) written by humans.
I really don't have a problem with you using AI, as long as you review and validate/test what it writes, and seems like you did that. Great project btw!
The bit about "but the UI" sounds like a developer thinking "UI is a solved problem" in the same way MBAs are told "coding is a solved problem".
Product people do seem to think it worth exploring "personalized software for everyone" like literally each person gets their own custom UI. This does sound like a support mess but it's not obviously wrong when you think about the Microsoft Word alternative.
All problems arise from this statement. It's baked in us and it's why we do in fact survive. But it isn't so neatly righteous. When we struggle to agree on what defines a human, who ought to have rights, and basic equality, it's easy to see how much harm "we should fight for survival" does.
Let me go on the record, then: Given a choice between every living human being becoming absolutely, for-real dead and the human species surviving, then I come down on the side of human survival. There are too many humans that I love personally, and too many innocent people just going about their lives that I would like to protect. Given a choice between the mass death of billions, and their survival, I choose survival.
Human rights are essential. But human rights are difficult to achieve if everyone is dead.
"If a death ray comes from the sky and obliterates the entire planet, at least we all go together." There is something comforting about being together with the human race even in doom. Perhaps especially in doom.
Previous YC founder so they’re already connected and vetted. Since then they’ve proven another 0-1 success with masks and manufacturing. Now they’re onto something very obviously hitting tailwinds.
The investment is peanuts to the fund. You’re missing the full-story deck and if they’ve shown traction it seems like a no brainer.
(btw for Lloyd the founder, Jason hired me right here from HN for ownlocal. It was my first professional software job. You guys made my career. Thank you)
> at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.
So 50x Pets.com or 2x Enron.
> judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.
Disagree. Unit economics matter and can help you cut through a lot of hype and nonsense. "Where's the money coming from?" is always a good question to ask. Sure, sometimes a megacorp loses money on each transaction and makes it up on float or whatever, but that's at least worth knowing if that's what's going on.
Agree due diligence is required. FTX, Theranos, Enron are a reality. But it’s also tempting to color the assessment with virtue.
Im morally against Meta but it’s the world’s greatest money printing machine ever conceived. To say they or Uber don’t make money would be too virtue-tainted.
downvote isn’t personal. it takes more than one to become gray.
Im trying to say it doesn’t matter what we plebs think about these massive entities. Maybe it should but if we’re talking creating (economic) value, they clearly are.
that’s likely the promise but it’s so confusing and high cognitive overhead to maintain that backend <-> frontend relationship. ‘use client’ - i think the special sauce for why people use nextjs is all frontend based. the frontend that comes from the backend.
nextjs dx is a special kind of hell. disclaimer: im just a simple rails guy.
Next.js is a poor choice for a client-side application. It is first and foremost a server-side framework, and trying to force it to be client-side is to work against it. There are so many better options than Next.js for dedicated client-side front-ends.
I don't understand this perspective. I've developed, delivered and maintained countless Next.js projects and never come close to considering it "high cognitive overhead." It's among the nicest DX I've experienced. It has a lot of features, I guess, but you don't have to use them if you don't like them. Next.js has very little to do with the frontend. The frontend is literally just react, which is why I commented in the first place. People keep acting like it's a "frontend framework" which doesn't make any sense at all.
React is a frontend framework. How do you get around that? It's invented entirely to handle client-side UX and reactive DOM updates which have to be DOM because it for the browser which is a frontend. Are you saying nextjs is the backend and react is just react, it's not nextjs' fault?
I'd say we disagree on the simplicity then: hydration, nextjs API reinventions of every interaction else 'use client' as an escape hatch which means it runs on the client but then what does the non 'use client' code do if nextjs is not a client-facing framework?
reply