_se

Typing code has never been the difficult part of quant finance.

Just like most nonfiction books, this post is a lot longer than it has to be. I think the core idea here is good, but it's pretty ironic that I wanted to stop halfway through.

When writing is good, succinct, and to the point, people will finish reading if they're interested in the material. If it's too long, fluffy, repetitive, annoying... people won't. I don't think it's a huge surprise.

That's the point :)

Taking the high road doesn't work with this type of individual. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade (or, more likely, call a bot a bot).

If you are pushing 40k lines of code per day you are an idiot and should be fired.

LLM docs suck.

For technically complex things, they EXTRA suck.

This is a bad idea.

Hilarious for this to be downvoted.

"LLMs are deceiving their creators!!!"

Lol, you all just want it to be true so badly. Wake the fuck up, it's a language model!

Brother, you are just outing yourself as being incompetent here. That is embarrassing.

Very reasonable take. The fact that this is being downvoted really shows how poor HN's collective critical thinking has become. Silicon Valley is cannibalizing itself and it's pretty funny to watch from the outside with a clear head.

HFT is about the last technical domain that could possibly be touched by LLMs. There is next to no good training data and there is zero margin for error.

No, not a single reply, because your statement wasn't "Excel can cause problems sometimes". That's a different conversation. You said "Don't use Excel for accounting", which is something you could only say if you have no idea at all about how accounting works in the real world.

I'm not arguing about whether or not Excel is perfect, or if it causes problems, or if it makes demons fly out of your nose. I am educating you about the real world and how it's important to understand that no matter how "well akshually" technically correct you are, it doesn't matter at all if the advice you're giving is WRONG and not useful to people.

So, I repeat. Idiots confidently spouting nonsense.

You don't really deserve a response, but even the idea that you could tell someone to not use Excel for accounting and seriously project that you know anything about how accounting works in the real world is hilarious.

You could think 500 random internet articles - it doesn't matter. The assertion is still ridiculous. You literally will not be able to get a job as an accountant without being able to use Excel. Don't be an idiot.

You can also link to hundreds of articles showing that dynamic types cause errors. People don't care, they still use them when it makes sense to use them. There is no better mainstream alternative for accounting than Excel right now, period.

This entire site is full of idiots confidently spouting nonsense. Probably time to move on. "Don't use Excel for accounting" has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a year, even with all of the LLM bullshit going on.

And that's including the people this morning who are apparently excited for LLMs to file their taxes.

How do people manage to pick such bad examples? Who in their right mind would ever allow an LLM to FILE THEIR TAXES for them. Absolutely insane behavior. Why would anyone think this is probably coming? Do you think the IRS is going to accept "hallucination lol" as an excuse for misfiling?

How do we flag accounts like this that are just LLM-generated plugs on LLM-adjacent posts?

This is so obviously LLM generated garbage. Anyone upvoting this comment: lol.

Cool, another one of the frustrating things that you do where you don't actually answer any question that anyone asked, and instead reply with something silly.

By implying you know so much about Tailscale, you immediately invalidate your original response to me about the interest that you found in the Moltbook post. Seriously dude, wake up.

Anyone who has used Tailscale before could have very easily figured out how to do that, yes. Of course, no sane person would ever want to do that, which is part of why it's not at all interesting.

Do you know what Tailscale is? Do you know how it works? Do you know why you would want to use it (and why you wouldn't)?

You get more and more frustrating every day.

There is literally nothing interesting about this. At all. Absolutely 0. You have a bunch of text generators generating text at each other. There's nothing deep, nothing to be learned, nothing to be gained. It is pure waste.

Anyone dumb enough to run this on their computer deserves it.

Literally any ev?

People do materialize the shape of data and use it directly. That's what most OLAP stores want you to do, and what most data analytics will do as a result.

The performance is, in general, significantly worse than standard OLTP joins for most real-time use-cases.

There's very little reason to avoid an OLTP join. It's faster than anything you're likely to be able to implement yourself, and the compute required with proper indices is negligible.

You're asking the wrong question, because really the question is where do they _not_ make sense, which is almost nowhere.

You could've just said "I don't understand how organizations of people work" and saved yourself a bunch of typing.

Ready to build companies, but apparently not ready for the traffic from Hacker News. More peak AI right here.

It's always fun to ask Opus what it thinks about articles like this. Here's what I got with no history or system prompt:

https://burkeholland.github.io/posts/opus-4-5-change-everyth...

Read this article and ultrathink critically about it. Provide your perspective.

The article makes a strong experiential case for improved velocity in AI-assisted development but contains several argumentation weaknesses and conflations worth examining.

The projects described are legitimately non-trivial: Firebase backend integration, Facebook OAuth, iOS apps in Swift (a language the author doesn't know), GitHub Actions pipelines, scheduled cloud functions. Getting these working in hours rather than weeks represents a real capability shift. The author is honest about his limitations and uncertainties, particularly the security concerns.

Where the argument breaks down:

1. "Replace developers" vs "dramatically augment developers" The author's own workflow contradicts the headline claim. He's still:

Making architectural decisions (choosing Firebase) Handling errors Opus couldn't see (XAML via Visual Studio) Writing custom prompts to shape output quality Manually auditing security Making product and UX decisions

This is developer work. The tool changed; the role didn't disappear.

2. The 80% security confidence undermines his thesis He admits he's shipping apps with "80% confidence" in security and calls it "too damn low." This is the crux: the AI accelerated production but didn't replace the judgment required to responsibly ship production software. The velocity gain exposed a competence gap rather than closing it.

3. Sample bias in project selection

All examples are:

Greenfield (no existing codebase) Single developer Personal/family use Standard patterns with excellent documentation (Firebase, SwiftUI, React Native) No regulatory, compliance, or scale requirements No team collaboration or handoff considerations

These constraints define a specific problem space where AI excels. Extrapolating to "developers are replaceable" ignores the majority of professional software work.

4. "Code doesn't need human readability" is underbaked His argument is circular: "Why optimize for human readability when the AI is doing all the work?" But:

His 80% security confidence exists because he can't read the code He had to use external tools (VS) when Opus couldn't diagnose errors What happens when context windows are exceeded and the LLM loses track? Model behavior changes between versions; human-readable code is version-agnostic

The custom prompt he shares actually encodes many good engineering practices (minimal coupling, explicit state, linear control flow) that benefit LLMs and humans. The "no comments needed" claim conflates what's optimal for LLM regeneration with what's optimal for debugging production issues at 3am. What's actually being demonstrated

The honest version of this article would be: Opus 4.5 dramatically compresses the gap between "can write code" and "can ship a personal app" for a specific class of greenfield projects. That's genuinely transformative for hobbyists, indie developers, and people solving their own problems. But that's different from "replacing developers." The article demonstrates a power tool; power tools don't eliminate tradespeople.

DHH has long past the point where anyone should be caring about his technical opinions. This is a 0 substance post.

The Marshall fire was 4 years ago. Almost to the day.

AI slop garbage

5 years? That's so interesting bro. Tell us more about what your thoughts on ChatGPT were back in 2020.

Go ahead and double check when the LLM craze started and perhaps reconsider making things up.

No, the new "Year of the Linux Desktop" is "This Year Software Engineers Won't Exist Any More Because Of LLMs". Very obviously.