For me personally, I feel like a lot of tech companies are bloated and a lot of people are justifying their salary by doing unnecessary projects.
In many cases, it's all internal and no skin off noses such as this font project. In other cases, it means the UI changes every 4 to 6 months or even worse, the software becomes so bloated with "features" it becomes unusable so a clean replacement comes on the scene then the cycle repeats.
Sometimes, I feel, it would be better for companies to clap their hands and go "We did it, we solved the problem" then just stop. Keep the infrastructure running, do bug fixes, listen to customers on new features or changes but otherwise not do product churn for the sake of justifying salaries.
To expand on my view in an abstract way, when constructing a building construction workers, architects, project managers, and the whole cadre are hired then the building is built then all those people move onto new projects. Continual development of software is like if construction never stopped so that the construction crew still had jobs. A construction site should strive to transition from architects, cranes, and concrete trucks to maintenance staff, mop buckets, and screw drivers.
No iTerm2, weird shortcuts, random issues in video calls?, also not really cheap to get a laptop that reliably works with Linux and has decent battery life
What about multi-file / larger changes? How would you express files being connected, imports, and exports? Or are you thinking the hz files are disposable per change?
The intention is for the files to persist, and I didn't mention it, but a core part of the system is that the editor persists source maps. So at any point in time, you can map any generated line back to the line of pseudocode that generated it.
I'll be looking into multi-file stuff soon - it's an interesting can of worms to think through.
- Doesn't feel like an idle game because you can 'prestige' within a few minutes and also there's never a clear moment to step away because the next tier is always only 20 to 30 seconds away.
- 'Step training' sucks because there is no way to do more than x0.1 at a time
- Launching with a store full of microtransactions when the game is puddle deep feels bad; everyone has to make money but having 4 microtransactions + 4 subscriptions while your research tree is only 9 steps makes this feel like a cashgrab rather than a game
- There's no clear way to buy hardware to improve
- The 'end game' is meaningless. There's no real reason to even play because there's no "Oh yeah!!!" feeling; it's purely just big numbers which I do love for idle games but there's no grand story that makes me feel powerful.
- There's absolutely no compelling reason to hire anyone because effectively you can just bum research, wait 5 to 10 minutes, click all the research then you just click 'step training' over and over then sell your company.
I disagree with the idea that money is what ruined the internet, to a degree.
What ruined the internet was, quite frankly, non-nerdy people who caused the average intelligence of the internet to massively drop causing everything to be catered to LCD rather than assuming a basic competency.
Yes, everything needing to extract money is part of it but that wouldn't be as offensive if there was still alignment on demographics of the internet; nerds, geeks, and various outcasts.
The solution to this is community and admin self-policing. HN has accomplished this by having community buy-in that we aren't Reddit so any Reddit-esque jokes or low quality replies quite immediately get removed causing the behavior to get trained out of newbs.
In the late 2000's/early 2010's that started to pick up where i live, and it was referenced (even by the government itself with it's social programs) as 'digital inclusion', where technology products where subsidized and made more accessible (dumbed down) to the general public, for the reason you mentioned on your third paragraph.
While this was in a time when PCs where the main and only thing for most to access the internet, in my opinion this problem really took shape as smartphones got popular. They where shaped to adapt to a low-level of tech literacy, and lock you in instead of actually providing knowledge to the user. Facebook then went in, and then Whatsapp. Whatsapp was a fun one because carriers made it free of charge, the push to the masses was insane, and nowadays you are questioned and looked at weird if you say you don't have a Whatsapp account.
That trend is what broke most of the social interactions and services on the internet for me.
I agree and good advice. Being so new to this and not having a network to bounce ideas off of or even try the app makes that part difficult to go from 0 to 1 for me personally.
While I agree that competition exists and it is validating that the labs and others are working on solving this problem. I am trying to focus on a broader solution. Competitors will focus only on memory - but not so much on the other infrastructure requirements to create an AI app (chat history, etc).
I am also trying to create a moat around the difference in how we validate and create memories. Most will have a single pipeline, I want to have multiple and compare - this does increase my COGS however.
Agree and fairly practical advice and one that comes up frequently when watching videos on yc founders etc.
I think another thing I'd like to point out is that it isn't necessarily 'quit your job' as it can also be 'do i take on more responsibility at work' or new role vs keep same role and split time between project and work.
In many cases, it's all internal and no skin off noses such as this font project. In other cases, it means the UI changes every 4 to 6 months or even worse, the software becomes so bloated with "features" it becomes unusable so a clean replacement comes on the scene then the cycle repeats.
Sometimes, I feel, it would be better for companies to clap their hands and go "We did it, we solved the problem" then just stop. Keep the infrastructure running, do bug fixes, listen to customers on new features or changes but otherwise not do product churn for the sake of justifying salaries.
To expand on my view in an abstract way, when constructing a building construction workers, architects, project managers, and the whole cadre are hired then the building is built then all those people move onto new projects. Continual development of software is like if construction never stopped so that the construction crew still had jobs. A construction site should strive to transition from architects, cranes, and concrete trucks to maintenance staff, mop buckets, and screw drivers.