Izmaki

Oh yes, 100%. It's full-spectrum, so there's absolutely UV light. :D My basil and avocado plan love it.

I second this. When my home was infested by flies (I stopped counting at ~1000 over a 3 week period) they would always swarm and hang out by my grow lights (full spectrum LEDs) in my kitchen window. It was a great place for fly traps on the flip side.

It is quite possible that flies prefer one part of the light spectrum more than another part, but to say in the title that they don’t swarm at LEDs is misleading at best.

You are probably right, and then I would most likely copy solutions to specific problems from StackOverflow like in the glory days of the 2010’s.

My first lead developer was an old school developer who preferred to look up guidelines and solutions in physical books he had on his desk. Nobody should waste time reinventing the wheel.

To answer your first question, it’s faster for me because I can formulate my request as a developer as if my AI agent was also a developer (in a sense it is) faster than I can figure out how to implement it on my own, especially in a new language and ecosystem. I didn’t just prompt Claude Fable at Max thinking capacity “yo dawg make me a game for iPhone that will make me rich just pick whatever style and stuff” and let it run for a week or two. I brainstormed the idea of the game with my AI agent (Opus 5.5 mostly at High), asked for suggestions, adjusted its proposal to my liking, asked it to flesh out an implementation plan for each milestone of the development journey, worked on different topics as we progressed (introducing complex graphics was sometimes challenging which required a bit of guidance for it to get the assets right), had it create a level editor for me because explaining every single thing was taking too long when I could just drag the sprite a little on my screen and tell it to compile my changes, we worked on ambience audio and sound effects at multiple levels (background, middle, foreground), and the list goes on.

A LOT of work has gone into this project, but without an AI I would not have gotten any further in the time spent than barely figuring out how to get even a simple round ball bouncing on a flat surface in Unity. With AI I’m looking at a feature complete game ready to ship to the App Store after the last bit details have been settled (advertisement laws and whether to monetise one way or the other or not at all, mostly).

AI is an incredibly powerful technology and when you wield it correctly you can go from 1x or 10x engineering to 100x or even 1000x at minimal risk (because you mitigated it along the way).

Some people react to harsh realities and truth with negativity and the only the only things they have control of here on HN: a downvote. :)

I, personally, never downvote people I disagree with. Who am I if I don't use another perspective as an opportunity to learn and grow? I can tell that many people agree, too, because my "comment score" is still mostly neutral at the time of writing.

Is a nuclear power plant dangerous? Or an airplane? Both are examples of an advanced form of what other entities in their category do.

Of course we should proceed with even more powerful tools. We also need even stronger governance of said tools. We don't want an AI-version of the Chernobyl incident but we do want the AI-version of the benefits that nuclear power gives.

I've spend the past month-or-two on developing a platform scroller game for smartphones using nothing but AI. It has created everything given my instructions, to my liking, from the way the game is played to graphical assets to sound effects. It looks and feels like any other typical studio-developed game you could find in the store, the difference is that I didn't have a studio of professionals working fulltime for months or years with various levels of project management and what not. It's just me. Me and my agentic coding subscription.

Vibe coding originally meant giving an LLM an instruction, having it regurgitate something potentially wholesome, testing it and feeding back the errors for it to fix it. What I've done in the past couple of months is so, so much more than that. I'm a puppet master and my coding agent is my puppet. I don't need to understand the code when I can describe the problem I want solved and it will do it 100x faster than I ever could.

I didn't use code to describe this level of abstration. I used English prose - and a heck of a lot of software engineering theory, mind you. If you know the solution requires a quad-tree and binary search because in this case, that is the best option, then that's an instruction, not a block of code.

I read the title as "Giant crayon". Lol.

This is exactly what has happened the past 50+ years, too, your toolbox was just different in the 90's than it is today.

I like to think of it as a new abstraction layer on top of something we've been comfortable with for years. The developers of the past had to trust that human-readable code would compile to the machine-level bytecode they were used to write, and that even though it wasn't as efficient as they could make it, one day the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Today most developers don't understand compilers well enough to even begin questioning if the code doesn't work because the compiler has a bug or because their code has a bug. They have to trust the abstraction layer beneath their current domain, and they have to find ways to prove that their work is correct in that domain (e.g., writing a sufficient number of unit- and integration tests, compiling with different compilers to different targets, etc.).

We, too, have to adjust to this change, this new abstraction layer, because whether we like it or not, the code an LLM will produce in no more than five years will arguably be much, much better than the code any 10x developer could produce even if given months of time and an infinite supply of caffeine.

We "just" need to find a way to confirm that our work in this new abstraction layer - primarily prompt engineering - results in the code functionality that we had in mind, not necessarily the code implementation that we had in mind.

Did you see this already? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50319510

This is, but is still limited by their license: https://github.com/hashicorp/vault

The weights are open, meaning publicly accessible, but you can't have a business profit off of them without paying for a license. That sounds fair and accurate.

HashiCorp has the same business model for their products: you are free to use them even in a business, except if your business is a competitor of their own cloud solutions.

You probably know this already but keep in mind that the "20x" only applies to the 5-hour window, not your weekly maximum. The weekly maximum is increased but not as significantly as the sales pitch wants you (us*) to believe.

The full spec is significantly more expensive in my local currency (Denmark, DKK) than in USD. Something like $7500 even after sales tax of 25% is added.

What gives?

This has to be the cheapest way to obtain a working POC. Lol!

I think that is an interesting observation. You're comparing the "why" we have a language vs. the "how" the language is structured, and for sure the former is more important than the latter.

A side effect of studying programming languages in my youth was that I began understanding grammar better. Suddenly words belonged to "classes" and when thinking about "object references" in sentences, and the rules that followed, it helped me read and write more clearly.

I think I might be slightly opposite of you, but not very far opposite. I prefer reading a precise and accurate sentence that - when understood - clearly describes the intent without a shred of doubt much more than an easy to understand sentence that I find ambiguous because, to understand it, it requires context and a social agreement that nobody is trying to trick people.

I had a friend once that kept using open-ended phrasings and ambiguous descriptions because (I think) he enjoyed the feeling of power or control that the confusion and miscommunication introduced. Like if he were to "run to the stores" you could ask what he was buying and he'd follow up with a "oh, I didn't say I was buying anything, I'm just going for a run". If I have to guess which of the variations of meanings is the intended one, then the communication has failed in my book, regardless of how easy it was to understand the sentence.

So, again, are we aiming for high correctness or high comprehension? "Company" makes sense because you can have a "company of five participants" and they can do something, e.g., select a wine pairing menu at a restaurant, but a corporation is typically "a thing".

Everyone who understands English at a professional level (and probably even lower levels, too - or perhaps especially those) will understand what you mean if you say "the corporation announced their financial report last weekend", but it won't be the correct use of "their", as far as I'm aware.

Similarly you can't, as far as I understand, append an "s" to describe a relationship of an inanimate thing, e.g., this would be incorrect: "the corporations employees went to the summer party" again because "corporation" is a thing. But on the flipside phrases like "the employees of the corporation went to..." sound a bit too - what's the word - posh?

In my mother tongue "baseline system state transition latency validation" would have grammatically been one word. I sometimes miss that in English. If you're tired and see "baseline system state transition*s* latency validation", note the hallucinated "s", the meaning changes and you need to read it again because you're unsure if you actually did see an "s" or if it's "one thing".

"Baselinesystemstatetransitionlatencyvalidation" is surprisingly enough less confusing to me because I know it's one word describing one thing, and my eyes registers each joined word with (years of) training, even though what my eyes look at might be the following chunks in order:

1) [ Baseline ] systemstatetransitionlatencyvalidation

2) Baseline [ systemsta ] tetransitionlatencyvalidation

3) Baselinesystems [ tatetransitio ] nlatencyvalidation

4) Baselinesystemstatetransiti [ onlatency ] validation

5) Baselinesystemstatetransitionlaten [ cyvalidation ]

My eyes essentially scan the word, and although it might be a tad bid slower than reading "baseline system state transition latency validation", reading and understanding is faster because I already know it's one thing before I know which thing it is.

Edit: The example would be easier to demonstrate if HN supported bold font, but I don't think it does (or know how).

"You're absolutely right, and I should have known better than to elaborate at great lengths when unnecessary."

(Sorry. I blame Claude.)

I learned in school (English is my 2nd language) that you can never use "their" or "they" about something inanimate like a corporation (or a chair, for example). You would use "its" or have to rephrase your sentence; "the developers at Google shipped their feature."

The suggestions are valid and correct, we (generic "we") are just used to not following proper grammar. This is how languages evolve but it is also what puts these assistance tools in a peculiar spot, because they help with accuracy, not everyday expressions.

You can definitely get far with skills and personal instructions. That is my estimate, not research.

(*defeated chuckles and gazes towards my Claude session*)

Listening to it auto-play "Ode to Joy" with a full band was more amusing than I thought. Lol!

Deloitte employees, former as well as current, are not allowed to share details about hiring process, management structure or compensation schemes. Enjoy.

*cringes in multiple ways*

I'm sure the seniors had a blast producing that material. "...and then I told them - get this (*wheezes between laughs*) - we have to be honest ! Hah!"

Amazing. Simply amazing. I also loved the one that allegedly says that you can't publicly criticise the leadership structure. Allegedly.

Deloitte has got, I've heard (!), in their training material a section about integrity and how important it is to act ethically correct. Deloitte also does sh*t like this and - again, I've heard (!) - asks its employees to bill hours on projects they are not working on so that they can maximize profits at their clients expenses. Also elephants are pink.

How this company can proceed to exist is beyond me.

For legal reasons I must emphasize that this is hear-say and should not be trusted as facts. At least one statement is a lie. What you believe to be true is up to you.

Thank you! :) Getting "Flock Mode" to function the way I wanted it to has been a bit of a challenge. I'm trying to design a tool that I basically don't have the hardware to fully utilize yet - which means my tests are (negatively) influenced by the weaker models I'm able to use. I tried using Qwen3.8 but since most of it runs in CPU/RAM on my PC, the full benchmark (that Claude has figured it wants to run to compare progress) was estimated to take 15 hours or more.

...and WoW: Forever Beta just released... :) :)

I suppose the ability for a strong coding-focused LLM to create the "video code" needed to produce a video is the selling point here. It's a good idea, but my naive thought is that it will be more work and more expensive to use this tool/process if you have strict requirements and opinions about the result.

I'm basing this on my experience with vibe coding; asking an LLM to regurgitate code which compiles and does something is easy, but having it produce a meaningful project with changing/evolving requirements along the way, which follows an idea you are trying to describe carefully but evidently not well enough, is significantly harder and error prone [1].

At this point in my project I'm not sure if using Claude as the only way to implement changes was actually faster or better, vs. implementing it myself where an LLM only assists with functions and overall guidance. I feel that up to half of what Claude spends its tokens on at this point is fixing old code whenever it needs to work on the core functionality in some areas of my project.

[1] CoBirb hobby project: https://github.com/HeckerBirb/CoBirb/

The banner even suggests that this is a git-related project. https://github.com/gatewai-dev/gitframes/blob/main/assets/br...

The thing about examples is that we can play-pretend for a while and imagine that "if X, then Y" even though "X" is not true in the real world. :)