I have very similar experience. I vibecoded a foreign language practice app for myself. It works decent from functional perspective and I don’t see too many bugs. But the biggest productivity constraint I see is the time I need to spend using it in order to understand what is working and where the issues are.
„I was able to vibecode those 5 apps I always wanted but never had time to code them myself … it is so different now because — I don’t have time to use them”.
That is wrong - the limit isn't time. The limit is you need to create a good ui so you don't need time. time is the limit for a fun game (see other comnents on how hard this is).
However an app needs to be a good enough ui that it does something for you and often they don't. Paper todo lists still beat all the todo apps people try to make because the ui works for paper. Paper has large limits and so it seems there must be an app out there that is better - but so far everyone has failed to create it.
Idea behind the joke is that those apps were not needed at all in the first place, it is only that person from the joke had grand idea lurking in their head that those will be super useful. If those apps would be needed a person would take time to build them. Now building useless apps costs much less.
Better UI doesn't matter if something is purely a "wannabe application" in someones head.
Ergo, if you don't have time to build out some idea - that is a clear indication such idea is not good or not so useful - even if you still have an urge to build it, subconsciously you already know.
You absolutely can. This is one of recommended directions with agentic coding. But you can go farther and ask llm to write tests too. The review/approve them.
There is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutrality.
So it loses pocket change for a multi billionaire?
Edit: The consideration being that perhaps billionaire toys need not be profitable per se, but are purchased for different reasons. Twitter is another example here.
That's assuming the pro-billionaire propaganda it produces doesn't make him many hundreds of millions more.
In that light an arbitrary but vaguely plausible reason to fire anyone who insists on doing actual journalism and not billionaire propaganda is a useful tool.
This is a distinctly Zed solution - trying to move the agent experience into the editor, rather than just giving the agent an interface with which to control and read from the editor.
Not only do the most popular editors have little-to-no incentive to implement it (they’re more interested in pushing their own first-class implementations, rather than integrating those of others), it’s much more work to integrate the evolving agent experience into the IDE than it would be to provide IDE integration points for the agents themselves.
So, I think this project would have been much more successful if it had been more focussed on keeping the agent and IDE experiences separated but united by the protocol, instead of trying to deeply marry them. But that’s not in line with Zed’s vision and monetization strategy.
It won’t be long before the big players start to release their own cloud-based editors. They’ll be cloud-based because the moat is wider, and they’ll try to move coding to the cloud in the way that Google Workspaces moved docs to the cloud. Probably with huge token discounts to capture people. If you squint, you can already see this starting to happen with Claude Desktop, which runs its agent loop on the cloud (you can tell because skills appear to need to be uploaded).
Notably, Microsoft, with VSCode and GitHub have a web-based editor advantage in this space, but no models.
It's not just Zed, Emacs has has a thriving ACP implementation in agent-shell[0], and allows for some very cool integrations[1]. There are a fair number of other clients[2] as well.
The second half of this is spot on. The now is making IDEs that can integrate with agents, not the other way around. Soon the Claude and Codex will do that for us on their hosts and the argument is it will save sending the context up.
Generally it is a good advise, I found similar things very useful for me.
I think emphasis on paper and one notebook is wrong here and likely will fail quite a bit of people who will try it. Also prescriptions like "They're very detailed" (i.e. notes) are IMO too rigid.
Start from wherever suit you, play, experiment and pay attention what works for you, adjust and iterate. Don't fixate on shiny concepts, i.e. "engineering notebook", and the "need" its records to be dated, etc.
Try something, let it lapse. See if you are worse without it, then adopt it back. If you don't see the difference, so be it.
This question maybe formulated too harsh, but it is valuable. There are quite a few similar applications (I think I tried 2 or 3 of them). Some are around for couple of years.
What is new / unique in your approach?
Well, one can look at this as at least a step in the right direction, compared to the active collaboration with Germany during WW1 by the people who became Irish government by the time of WW2 arrived.
The two world wars were not the same. WW1 was a stupid war that happened for stupid reasons, and there were no real moral differences between the sides. Many nations tried to use the war as an opportunity for independence by collaborating with the opposing side. Some of them were successful.
In Finland, we still call infantry Jägers in honor of those who went to Germany to receive military training and to fight against Russia.
Summary is supposed to give you a taste of what the link destination talks about. If most of the page information can be fitted in one paragraph of summarization, the problem is with webpage, and visiting that webpage would have been a waste of the user time.
Short term - higher stock evaluation.
Long term - depends on what value AI bubble will be able to deliver. But it's not like Amazon is sitting out of this game, they do invest into their AI (Nova models), with little return to show for it.
All analysis there is based on percent of jobs posted.
It says nothing how absolute number of jobs postings has been changing during the time.
Not to mention that number of job posting is the function of employees retention in addition to head count changes, and employees retention will be likely different from region to region.
reply