> 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 th

> 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.