3 ms·

In your original point you seemed to be painting everything with the same brush. There was no "90%" mentioned. And you still seem to be exaggerating - I suspe

by qarl 26d ago

In your original point you seemed to be painting everything with the same brush. There was no "90%" mentioned. And you still seem to be exaggerating - I suspect that the number of projects that can be recreated easily is much lower than 90%. And you sound extremely angry about it. Are you sure that the number of good projects hasn't increased? Or is it just the signal to noise ratio that troubles you? And... as a final point - I suspect that bird detector wouldn't be terribly difficult for a Claude subscriber. Yet you already agreed it's not in the shit category, right?

brandon272 26d ago
> In your original point you seemed to be painting everything with the same brush. There was no "90%" mentioned. My apologies, I assumed that it was implied that I was speaking generally. I will try to be clearer going forward. I stand by my 90% figure based on what I observe from the full corpus of daily "Show HN" submissions. > And you sound extremely angry about it. I can't even begin to imagine what part of my very plainly written comments are communicating "extreme anger" but I guess it's difficult to communicate tone online! > I suspect that bird detector wouldn't be terribly difficult for a Claude subscriber. Yet you already agreed it's not in the shit category, right? It depends on what you mean by "terribly difficult". To provide some clarity on my view: Just because something can be recreated easily does not automatically make it terrible or bad, but the fact that we can now generate software as easily as we generate a bowel movement (to borrow from my previous comment) means the bar for quality and attention has changed. > Are you sure that the number of good projects hasn't increased? Or is it just the signal to noise ratio that troubles you? Yes, signal-to-noise.
- qarl 26d ago
  > I can't even begin to imagine what part of my very plainly written comments are communicating "extreme anger" I think it was your comparison to fecal matter.

by qarl 26d ago

brandon272 26d ago

> In your original point you seemed to be painting everything with the same brush. There was no "90%" mentioned. My apologies, I assumed that it was implied that I was speaking generally. I will try to be clearer going forward. I stand by my 90% figure based on what I observe from the full corpus of daily "Show HN" submissions. > And you sound extremely angry about it. I can't even begin to imagine what part of my very plainly written comments are communicating "extreme anger" but I guess it's difficult to communicate tone online! > I suspect that bird detector wouldn't be terribly difficult for a Claude subscriber. Yet you already agreed it's not in the shit category, right? It depends on what you mean by "terribly difficult". To provide some clarity on my view: Just because something can be recreated easily does not automatically make it terrible or bad, but the fact that we can now generate software as easily as we generate a bowel movement (to borrow from my previous comment) means the bar for quality and attention has changed. > Are you sure that the number of good projects hasn't increased? Or is it just the signal to noise ratio that troubles you? Yes, signal-to-noise.

qarl 26d ago
> I can't even begin to imagine what part of my very plainly written comments are communicating "extreme anger" I think it was your comparison to fecal matter.