In my company, user reported bugs get triaged and once they are confirmed they end up in the board of the team owning that part of the system (often they also built it, but is not necessarily the same people). Then there's a team bug threshold and if it gets reached then the whole team can't merge anything else until X amount of bugs are fixed and the number goes down.
It's very annoying system and in cases of emergency it can of course temporarily be lifted by someone above, but honestly is very effective in making sure that bugs are fixed in a reasonable amount of time.
This makes fixing bugs "part of maintenance work that is a given and expected to be done between new initiatives".
> I think GPT writes code the best. How well will it write in version 5.6? It gives me chills.
Heard this exact sentence multiple times a few months ago about Opus 4.6, then 4.7 and 4.8 were considered a disappointment and today people miss "the good old times of 4.6" (referring to a few weeks of February 2026).
Very fascinating to look at all of this unfolding.
Used it for years and never encountered a single bug, and I'm quite a power user with hundreds of items stored in it, shared vaults, and access multiple times per day. It's one of the few softwares I happily pay for.
Maybe it differs from platform to platform, otherwise I can't explain your comment.
I don't agree with this view of an "attention marketplace". Besides the HN small (and arguably irrelevant) bubble, most of the world attention is swayed by pop-stars, actors, musicians and influencers talking about what they had for breakfast and the gossip surrounding them. That on top of politically-controlled content/slop factories. A non-researched piece of content presenting an idea that was somewhere already talked about in a book or a paper can't do that much damage imho. If it reaches anyone and makes them think about something it can only be a net positive.
> Most (continental) philosophy is closer to art in my opinion than scientific inquiry. If you accept it as art, then you at least open the door to there being many valuably different ways of saying "love is good" or "reality is complicated" or what have you. And if you consider it as something beyond art, well, then it has some very pointed questions to answer.
I would invite you to read more philosophy if that's your idea of what philosophy is, because it feels very far from what has been discussed over the centuries by many authors way smarter than me and you.
I think this is some sort of modern academia bias. What you say it is true in academia, most things have already been thought and studied and that's why any academic book or paper has a citation in every sentence. I understand why this rigor is important in academia, but is it in the rest of the world?
If I have an interesting thought about a topic and I share it with an audience that is not PhDs, to them it might be interesting and insightful and provoke new thoughts.
Most likely yes, someone in the 70s somewhere in the world already wrote a paper about this idea or even a book. Does it matter though? Sharing ideas gets people thinking and the fact that someone else already extensively thought about something doesn't make my thoughts less relevant. If anything, by sharing it I could get a comment pointing me to a book or paper that would help me understand better the topic or expand my ideas further.
I don't think that what's worth sharing are only documents that quote everyone else that already talked about it and their thoughts. That might work if I want to prove that my work is at boundaries of human knowledge or that is the most plausible explanation for something, but if I just want to share ideas then I find it limiting. Not just because it limits the people with the knowledge to write anything to a handful, but also because for those people there is this anxiety of "not worth it, wasting people time" if it's not researched for months like you mention. Share your thought, if some expert will find it wasteful or naive they will not read it, but someone else might and it might open their mind.
This makes me think about philosophy, if you really dig down into it virtually all philosophy ideas were already discussed first by Plato and Aristoteles. You cannot find a modern philosophy thought that isn't in some way already discussed by those two. Should then all philosopher in history not write anything because it was not really an original thought?
What was that Warren Buffett's quote about everyone trying to leave the party seconds before midnight in a room where there are no clocks? I think it was at peak of the dot com bubble
> When rewriting the entire codebase is very quick and cheap, why bother iterating on small components?
We are nowhere near this scenario tbh. Token cost is very high and is currently heavily subsidized by VC money to gain market share. Also this realistically only applies to small projects, small codebases and mostly greenfield ones. No way you can rewrite the whole codebase quickly and cheaply in any mid-sized+ projects
But even assuming token cost plummets, any non-trivial piece of software that is valuable enough to generate income for the company is also big, complex, interconnected enough that cannot be rewritten quickly even by AI, also for business reasons too. If a piece of code works, is stable and is tested, then rewriting it will always bring a high degree of risk and uncertainty that in a lot of business critical applications is just not worth it. A stable system can stay untouched for years besides minor dependencies updates.
Only small businesses and startups pay $200/month, most medium+ sized companies will have an enterprise plan and pay by token usage to access the security, privacy, and compliance guarantees that their legal and security teams require.
Also, I think the $200/mo plan is subsidized by VC money and is likely hemorrhaging money for Anthropic, so it's not really meaningful to reason around that.
I'm honestly confused by the design of SWE-bench and why is considered reliable.
It's based on existing GitHub PRs and Issues, the full dataset is on HuggingFace and is one year old now. All frontier models 100% have those issues and PRs in their training data so obviously they are good at reproducing fixes for them when confronted with the same codebase and similar requests. Am I missing something? How is this considered the most reliable benchmark?
I think they need to have the enterprise plan for accessing advanced security and data handling guarantees. Also they set up pretty strict controls on what tools the agents can use at the org level that we cannot override, not sure that's an option with the subscription plans.
I work at a unicorn in EU. Claude Code has been rolled out to all of engineering with strict cost control policies, even with these in place we burn through tens of thousands of euro per months that I think could translate in 15/20 hires easily. Are we more productive than adding people to the headcount? That's a good question that I cannot answer.
Some senior people that were in the AI pilot, have been using this for a while, and are very into it claimed that it can open PRs autonomously with minimum input or supervision (with a ton of MD files and skills in repos with clear architecture standards). I couldn't replicate this yet.
I'm objectively happy to have access to this tool, it feels like a cheat code sometimes. I can research things in the codebase so fast, or update tests and glue code so quickly that my life is objectively better. If the change is small or a simple bugfix it can truly do it autonomously quicker than me. It does make me lazier though, sometimes it's just easier to fire up claude than to focus and do it by myself.
I'm careful to not overuse it mostly to not reach the montlhy cap, so that I can "keep it" if something urgent or complex comes my way. Also I still like to do things by hand just because I still want to learn and maintain my skills. I feel that I'm not learning anything by using claude, that's a real thing.
In the end I feel it's a powerful tool that is here to stay and I would be upset if I wouldn't have access to it anymore, it's very good. I recently subscribed to it and use it on my free time just because it's a very fun technology to play with. But it's a tool. I'm paid because I take responsability that my work will be delivered on time, working, tested, with code on par with the org quality standards. If I do it by hand or with claude is irrelevant. If i can do it faster it will likely mean I will receive more work to do. Somebody still has to operate Claude and it's not going to be non-technical people for sure.
I genuinely think that if anyone still believes today that this technology is only hype or a slop machine, they are in denial or haven't tried to use a recent frontier model with the correct setup (mostly giving the agent a way to autonomously validate it's changes).
I like the idea of OpenClaw a lot, it's a technology that I would want in my life. But in it's current form it's kinda chilling and I cannot see it become safe to use anytime soon.
It seems to me many infosec best practices that have been built over decades have been forgot in the last few months like nothing happened. People really do give this kind of software full system access, plus access to their emails, their private chats, most likely their passwords too and who knows what else via plugins. I couldn't really imagine this happening one year ago.
I'm 100% confident that any state actor and cybercrime groups are currently heavily focusing their research on these tools. You compromise the right person and you can access all kind of critical information, it would basically be the same as having some remote control software on their system with full permissions.
And everyone on the hype train seems to be absolutely unaware of this. Maybe I'm missing something, but all of this feels so odd to me.
It's amusing to always have this US-centric view touted as some ultimate truth while lacking any nuance.
I live in Germany and here there is absolutely an expectation of privacy in public spaces. The individual rights (privacy) are balanced with the collective rights (freedom of press) and both are allowed to exist, because based on the context of the situation one right can prevail on the other. To give you some simple examples: if I go to a public event, a political manifestation, then no: no expectation of privacy. But if I am walking around with my family in a park, yes there's absolute expectation of privacy even if I'm in a public space. Context matters and it's impossible to have just one broad and vague rule covering anything. Also keep in mind that a public figure automatically has lower expectations of privacy than a private citizen. While I can sue a paper for publishing a picture of me slacking at work, a public figure most likely cannot or would lose in court because the right of the people to get informed of his behavior is higher than his right for privacy. Who gets to decide? A healthy judiciary system, not "those in power".
Another interesting nuance of the law in Germany is: it's almost always illegal to take pictures or video of people that show their suffering or struggle. You cannot take a video of a man having a mental breakdown for example. Is this universal? No, of course a journalist will take a picture of a suffering man in the cold to send a message about inequality. If he ever will be sued it will be the judge to decide if in this specific instance the right of the individual or the right of the collective right should prevail.
> If your relatives are significantly tech illiterate, I'd skip the smartphone entirely and go for a locked-down Linux desktop + feature phone. The most dangerous apps are big legitimate ones.
You know, they are adults and have free will and do want a smartphone like everyone else to use Whatsapp, read the news, search things on Google, etc.
Hell, my 95 year old grandma convinced a nurse to install TikTok on her phone because she saw her using it and also wanted to try it. It's not like we can isolate them from the world
We need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.
Cameras in phones are pretty much locked up today, assuming you have an updated version of the OS from a respectable manufacturer. Apps will not be able to access the camera feed (or the microphone) without explicit consent and a visual warning.
The manufacturer might access it, Apple states they don't, Google and Samsung I'm not sure. A bad actor with 0days might too.