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

I do the same, I don't use Claude Code or Codex planning because it is mostly pointless, even with Fable/Astra. I just have multiple agents work on a markdown file which I manually perfect, often breaking into multiple different files for large features or PRs. I also create design 'handoff' documents which I feed into Claude Design or Astra along with screenshots and wireframes. By the time an agent does something I'm well prepared.

I've tried doing the incremental, iterative approach with just Code and it's just not as effective unless you're working on something simple or experimental. Or you're shipping to something non-serious or perpetually beta.


Security backed loans for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

> "Security backed loans for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?"

Income for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

Capital gains for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

Property for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

Inheritance for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?

What a strange question.


Where did he say that? I listened to it yesterday and AFAIK he only said "I don't know where the line between native vs web will end up in the future" (now that we can generate native apps easier)

Keep in mind DHH is working on an email app, it makes sense he sees native as the default option for that over pushing everything through the web when the barrier to entry lowered dramatically.

Hotwire is not explicitly a cross-platform concept. It's primarily a way to build web apps in the browser which is not going away any time soon. The only difference is in 2026 you're just more likely to vibecode a native mobile app than build a web/React Native version. Likewise you may build a native Desktop version instead of an Electron wrapper.


The issue with native apps is that you have to convince people to install them. If I had one app for each tab I open in my browser my phone would be a mess and out of free space. Then you slow down the delivery of features and bug fixes because you have to go through the app stores. You can't deploy something every day or more often.

So even if we can generate an app easily now, is that a wise choice for every business?


Like everything, depends on the usecase. An email desktop app seems to be a valid one. A standard earlystage B2B SaaS Rails web app? Not so much.

Same with server side rust. A high volume transactional backend email service makes sense there. The base layer of a CRM managing a lot of business logic?

Life will go on much the same. We just have more options to say yes to 'native' with LLMs, we can experiment more with ideal scenarios rather than a religious adherence to cross platform or single-framework merely for team DX simplicity.


If the apps were actually good, you'd install them. A lot of the apps on F-Droid are pretty lightweight, and a phone's security model makes it much safer than installing apps on Windows.

The web makes apps worse by forcing a fairly strict sandbox, even as Google keeps trying to loosen it. Think of a messaging app that hides in your notification tray, that's a trivial UX thing that's impossible on the web.


When I started in computing there was no Web, there was enough space to install the applications that actually mattered, and even better, developers actually had to take hardware constraints into account.

> If you watch the talk, he is not anti-rails.

He explicitly said he still loves ruby as a language and thinks Rails is well suited for a future with AI coding.

It's interesting how this stuff gets spun on social media by people who don't watch the content.


It looks like he spent about 4 minutes out of the 1:03 making that point.

I can't but help think that he would have spent longer on it if that's what he really thought.

I don't think he believes in Rails any more.

It's clear that he was more excited about thing that are not ruby or rails and now considers rust better suited to the output of AI.

To be honest, I could see rust taking over from typescript/javascript as an output language for the web too. If no one needs to read source code any more why not use rust for everything?


I don't think anyone should really believe in Rails at this point. It was a monumental leap forward at the time but other stacks have shown that there are better ways.

>It's interesting how this stuff gets spun on social media by people who don't watch the content.

I watched it live, and a few actually in the show have very different perspective to what you suggest, they were just keep it to themselves and not posting it on twitter. Some did, but then deleted it.

And no one is questioning he doesn't like ruby anymore. But it was obvious there was nothing much said about the future of Ruby and Rails.


It doesn't matter if Rails is well suited for AI or not. Now, there's less incentive and reasons to use it.

When I started as rails dev in 2013, it was really the top solution for producing MVP fast. Now, I don’t think that’s the case and most of the incentives are gone if we are no longer writing code by hand

So what would you pick for producing an MVP web app fast that you also want to run in production, maintain, patch and scale that has a solid eco-system of pre-built libraries you can just plug in to solve problems?

I prefer a Rails backend, especially in the agentic world.

With an agent on a greenfield is when I’m most reliant on a framework for good standards and a clear architecture.

This is one of the things Rails does really well.


I strongly prefer Rails with agentic development. Rails comes with nearly everything you need to make a full-featured application, and that makes it easier and faster to use with agents.

No other framework comes close, and telling me that I can have my agents cobble together this same baseline, badly, from a hodgepodge of new code and random libraries is not compelling.


Because people are naive enough to think the huge privacy compromise will be worth the cost to society in order to protect kids.

The better question is why in 5yrs we will have to use ID to buy a product on some random ecommerce site or to play a video game or use Uber or post a comment on Reddit. It will be because people pushed for this for kids on social media and opened the door for the rest of the internet companies to demand it and therefore the government.


I really hate it when some vague "people" are blamed for this bullshit. those who do -- a minority -- do it only because they've been brainwashed by the relentless public opinion campaign ran jointly by the capital and the governments.

No brainwashing needed, the vast majority of people don’t care one bit about privacy

the vast majority of people would object to having a camera in every room of their dwelling. they just don't realize that having spyware on every piece of electronics they own is even worse.

They don’t care. Even if you explain everything in details, in a way they understand. We’ve been having that arguments since 2 decades, it’s now pretty clear they don’t care. They will complain about flock, then 2 minutes after sign up for Muse and share all their personal data with Meta, even if told what that’s used for

Youtube video Meta released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD_bmMy5nQ

And another random youtube influencer who tried it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J8oIs1GA0o

$1300 price


According to the influencer, the weight is 100 g. I have 25 g (+lenses) glasses I wear often, and even that is right on the upper edge of what's comfortable and needs almost-uncomfortable tight arms to stay steady when my head moves. And, that's all as somebody who's worn glasses all my waking hours since like age 10, complete with nose-indent calluses. Either those Meta glasses are clamping uncomfortably hard on the sides of your head all the time or they'll fall off the first time you lean forward.

Strange complaint. 100 grams is extremely light compared to every other VR headset.

Most other VR headsets don't put their entire weight on your nose and ears.

According to reviews it feels very light.

strange comparing glasses to headsets

The capabilities are quite similar.

This is the sweet spot Apple's aiming for next year.

Maybe users will develop a distinctive posture.

For Meta, on their knees?

> Youtube video Meta released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD_bmMy5nQ

That video is on the page itself as well, right top


Is it just me or do those angles deliberately obscure how thick it is lens-wise? I have a pair of X-real airs, 2 years old now, and they're pretty thick. They're 1/4th the price and basically work as a head-mounted display. Is that what this, but way fancier and more sleek?

Xreal style glasses use forms of "birdbath" optics with screens up top reflected through prisms. This likely use the regular concentric pancake optics used in many other VR headsets.

But yeah, the angles are to obscure thickness. It's not going to be as thin as it appear from a distance.


Which means they live in one of the few obvious countries that tolerates this.

You can spot vibecoded websites by how they include the prompt or commit-style comments into the literal interface, instead of communicating it via visual context (or simply excluding it)

> Sort by any column; values the run could not produce always sort last. Hover a cost for how it was priced, a latency for the endpoint. Names link to each project.

A designer would never write this, but an LLM just inserts it by making it small grey text next to the interface, just like it does with inane code comments.


EYEBROWS EVERYWHERE

There are lots of tells in every vibe coded design.


And why is a designer needed for every website in the world?

I (not GP) have no issues with CSS part of the design (just as I am fine with bootstrap websites). But if you can't be arsed to write 4 lines of text describing it in human language instead of the claude vomit, you probably didn't put much effort to begin with.

They're not needed. And there are bad designers everywhere.

And I know HN people think marketing is a bad word.

But marketeers know that design is part of the messaging. And nowadays, having clear AI tells in your design shouts "I made this in an afternoon, so don't take this seriously"

First impressions are everything in a world where attention spans are shortened every year.

Act accordingly.


It's helpful metadata, what's wrong with it? Dashboards at work do this.

One person’s helpful metadata is another person’s noise. It’s much better for a door to visually indicate that it should be pushed open than to put up a sign there.

However, doing the former requires a level of empathy with humans that LLMs rarely have.

Human brains have caloric demands. It is possible for humans to process enormous amounts of unrelated facts to make a decision, but it’s tiring. It’s much better to not do that, especially just to get some basic information.

To anthropomorphize a bit, an LLM might find it charming and interesting to read someone’s life story as a preamble before their taco recipe. Humans by and large find that annoying, not because we can’t understand the biography but because processing that information is not free.

So it’s probably possible to design using an LLM. You would probably have to be intentional about it.


Well said

Much has been discussed about AI coding but there's been a lack of discussion on the design/UX side as that's also a step being rushed by via prompting + "looks pretty enough".

We're entering an era of hyper dense UIs with plenty of excess and quick workarounds.


If you don't have any kind of agent instructions saying "don't copy code into prose", you'll inevitably get text that reflects some previous state of the system instead of its current state.

It's fine in isolation to have help text for complex interfaces needing explanation. Better yet contextual hints.

But there's about 10 other examples explaining intention of the coding rather than immediately useful information to the user, it's all over this one site in small grey text. And I guarantee you nobody is reading them carefully. Just like how nobody likes reading a 15 line LLM code comment over a simple function.

Most of it could be better solved with more thoughtful design or deleted. The link explanation is particularly egregious.


Lucille Ball's voice changed dramatically over the course of the 6yr show from heavy smoking. Their show was sponsored by cigarette companies and she used to hand out cigarettes on a platter to guest when they came over to her house.

I went to a Black Keys concert in 2007 or so that was sponsored by Camel cigarettes and they were giving out free packs of their newest variety at the door.

The headline says "contributed to missile strike", not caused it.

>people that decided to shift a significant weight of decision-making authority to an AI

And I hedged that. Anything short of 100% responsibility with humans is a failure. I get investigating how it occurred, but that needs be very careful to separate ought from is.


That's fair

The obvious questions is when the intelligence needed to be updated (ie, when Iran decided to put a girls school on a military base) and when Iran made that fact public, or at least when the US intel should have figured it out with satellites and other sources.

If it's years old then definitely on human. Intelligence will always be flaky in these hostile countries.


> when Iran decided to put a girls school on a military base

That's quite common. The US DOD operates 163 K-12 schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.T._Sampson_Elementary/High_S...

In this case:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/3/questions-over-minab...

> The findings reveal that the school had been clearly separate from an adjacent military site for at least 10 years.


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

Search: