121–130 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
It's hard to measure ROI so we generally wouldn't. Even McKinseys and BCGs have a hard time showing ROIs. Sure, you could say all digital transformations are nebulous snake oil and don't deliver but I just don't think this is the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data is aggregated, and you cannot possibly identify a single user from what's been published. I see no issue here.
I think their point is that there's business value in the usage data and linear is using that value in a way that benefits them but not the customers they got it from. It reminds me of matt levine's reframing of insider trading where it's not about fairness it's about theft. You're supposed to get secret insights and use them to get an edge. What you can't do is get an edge for yourself with secret insights that your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I program as a hobby, personal projects because I can. I recently set up a local llm to see what the fuss is about and other than the few ringer solutions my experience is as you described. 2min promping, 5min waiting, 3hrs debugging or just doing it myself. I am very likely doing it wrong, and it does speed up some aspects, but I wouldn't say I trust llm code any more than my own. Until it runs and throws an error,…
A normal agentic loop will have the agent using a type system and basic tests to do some basic validation of changes. A good agentic loop would give the agent a very easy way to verify if it’s on the right track. I think agents are better than many humans at writing error free code (runtime errors, not bugs. The code could still be buggy or incorrect.)
So I asked Claude to first figure out a way to instrument GPU particle code so it could itself check his solutions. After that I left the agent running for 3 hours and it came back with a solution (continuous collision detection) and a bug fix (particles get their velocity applied an extra frame after colliding). I'm sure someone would find something to complain about the code (which is why I haven't upstreamed it) but it looks visually perfect and I had plan to fork the engine for my project anyway
Usage does not correlate with valued output or ROI. This article smells like a bad attempt to say hey guys our customers see ROI without any actual evidence that they do. Also, somewhat amusingly, the “founder” consistently being at the top of the use curve might just have something to do with everyone else also using it, but that more implies people are using it because the chief at the top wants them to use it… not…
> Usage does not correlate with valued output or ROI This sounds possible but how can we know? It could just as well correlate. Effort of all kinds correlates with success even when it's not obvious or not... linear.
The AI Slopologists strike again. More garbage by garbage people.
Is this just an opinion? If so, fair. If it's an attempt at rebutting their claims etc, it'd be easier to interact if you provided some data, or concrete observations :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skill issue. If you make an effort to use the new tools effectively, the gains are wild. Don't fall into a grumpy luddite trap, the train is leaving the station and you'll struggle to catch up if you don't learn and grow. Not using AI for software development in 2027 will be like only knowing how to program via punchcard in 2010. It's new. It's different. It's hard. It's your job. Learn how to use it effectively, emb…
Is this mean-spirited comment really what you want to share as the face of your company?