While this may be true that MOST projects don't need the complexity that the internet proselytizes, if you want a job in tech, you'll have to learn the teachings of the internet and what the "industry" agrees are "best practices".
This feels so dishonest. If the vulnerabilities are a needle in the haystack. Mythos was just given the haystack and told to find the needle while the authors pointed to a spot in the haystack and told their LLM to try looking around there. That's not even close to being the same.
so how would you eval your own claude.md? Each context is unique to the project, team, and personal root claude.md. Do you just take given task and ask it to redo the same one over and over again against a known solution? Do you just keep using it and "feel" whether or not it's working? How is that different from what everyone is already doing?
Is it just me, or is vibe coding only useful for greenfield projects that have minimal complexity? Seems like they collapse once enough complexity has built up.
I'm someone who hated leetcode style interviews for the longest, but I'm starting to come around on them. I get that these style of questions are easy to game, but I still think they have _some_ value. The point of these style of questions was supposed to test your ability to problem solve and come up with a good solution given the tools you knew. That being said, I don't think every company should be using this type of question for their interviews. I think leetcode style questions should be reserved for companies that are pushing the boundary of the industry since they're exploring charted territory and need people who can come up with unique solutions to problems no one really knows. I think most companies would be fine with some kind of pairing problem since most people are probably solving engineering problems instead of computer science problems. But none of this matters, since, we all know that even if we went that direction as an industry, the business people would fuck it up some how anyways.