Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tom_m's commentslogin

You can build plenty with Google ai pro plan and Antigravity. Yea there's some limits that should be even higher, but you can still build stuff.

Meh, that's ok. Not using openclaw anyway. Doesn't sound useful to be frank.

3.0 pro is fantastic. Can't wait for 3.1. and no I'm not solely a user of Gemini, I also love Opus. I just end up using 3.0 pro more.

Exactly. I mean think about the programming languages used in aircraft and such. There's reasons. It all depends on what people are willing to tolerate.

They tier it. So you are limited until you pay more. So you can't just right away get the access you need.

There are. It's like healthcare, the healthy don't use it as much and pay for the sick.

I thought Anthropic would fall after OpenAI, but they just might be racing to the bottom faster here.

I think they're doing a great job on the coding front though

I think there is a huge gap between people who has a good CLAUDE.md (or similar), or those who doesn’t.

When I first tried, the created code was garbage. Now that I slowly built my memory, several thousands of manually written examples and guidance, it can generate quite reliably, when it doesn’t need literally anything outside of those…

That being said, most of the vibe coded codebases (in reality every single one which I saw) use garbage memory, and consequently have garbage output.

So the same thing is terrible and great at the same time. People who give time, and people who is fine producing garbage (huge majority) says it’s great. People who just tried it out, and don’t have the luxury to potentially waste days and weeks, say that it’s bad. All of these are true at once.


Maybe for coding but the number of normie users flooding to Claude over OAI is huge.

Oh no? Things we would never have to specify to a human? This is precisely how software gets made and how software ends up with bugs.

It's amazing how many things I saw over the years where I said the same exact thing; "but you shouldn't have to tell anyone that."


I mean some might say that's like joining a sinking ship. Of course one man's trash is another man's treasure. To each their own.

Hiring in tech has been broken for many many years at this point. There's so much noise and only more noise coming now with AI. To be completely honest it's entire random from my end when hiring. We can't review every application that comes in. It's just impossible. We do weed out some of the spam of course and do get to real people that actually fit the requirements, but there's so many other talented people who would easily fit the role that simple get buried under applications. It's depressing from all sides here. No one should think that they aren't any good or did something wrong or didn't network enough... because the unfortunate truth is that getting a job in tech is a lottery. Something many don't want to admit.


Im working on a project to change this.

Funny that you mention 'real people'. There are a number of components that sit at the core of what Im building - it should allow you to have the time and reach to vet more (100% verified) candidates than you ever could before. I also want to reduce the explicit costs of hiring so that firms can hire more people.


The equipment definitely makes a difference but you're right about diminishing returns. In fact, at a certain point it's zero returns and all gimmick unfortunately.

That said, you don't need to break the bank for good stuff and it does make a huge difference. There's also a lot of marketing out there for bad equipment. Apple air pods and beats headphones and more.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: