I'm skeptical about this product, and while my age might introduce (17 year old as well , though no cool project other than some ai made bogus , just learning / looking at cool stuff) with some bias, I have a lot of criticisms. The project seems like an underwhelming alternative to Anki (which I use), enhanced dim wittedly with AI. More importantly, the marketing approach feels misguided.
My primary issue is that Projects should be judged on their intrinsic utility, not on the age of their developer. By highlighting "a 17-year-old made this" on platforms like Hacker News, the marketing seems designed to provoke curiosity about young talent rather than showcase the product's actual value.
The title appears clickbaity, seemingly calculated to attract attention by leveraging the novelty of youth rather than the product's genuine capabilities.
TLDR :
The core recommendation is simple: let the product speak for itself. Technical innovations should be evaluated on their technical strengths, solving real problems effectively, not on the details of their creators.
As a previously precocious young teen, I would have agreed with your point but as someone who is now a boring adult I disagree.
Projects are often and will continue to be judged by their marketing. There are many such cases of "I'm X years old and I made Y" posts on Hacker News reaching the front page. As a founder, you should use whatever you can to get eyeballs on your product. As a hacker, you should try to make something you think is cool.
While it is obviously cool to have something novel or technologically interesting to showcase, the value is often less in the actual product and more in the nostalgia and reminder that we too, as boring adults, were once younger hackers.
Let's not be so hard on each other. I think it's a pretty well designed landing page (although the mobile website needs some work in terms of responsiveness.) I don't think this is similar to Anki because there's no spaced repetition or flashcard retrieval involved (from what I could tell).
It does seem like a tool for cheating which is somewhat questionable. I do like the idea of a young hacker today figuring out how to automate their homework, but I think the tool can be a bit more tailored and more ethical if it focused on a specific use case students would equally pay for (ex: AP test prep)
> As a founder, you should use whatever you can to get eyeballs on your product.
I am not a founder so maybe my side of reasoning is flawed as a customer but I come in the belief that there is good advertising and bad advertising.
Some people consider both advertising to be good but I don't think so.
For example , the discussion we are having right now could be considered as an example of bad advertising
I mean , think about it , why are we discussing about the age of the product's creator in the first place aside from the fact that he tried to catch our precious attention by such advertising.
I also don't think that the current apple intelligence ads are good advertising. They are in the news / It was my first time watching an apple ads intentionally (I have ad blocker) , and I cringed half way through. I felt even righter that as an android user , I am right (maybe it was a self serving bias that because I am an android user , I watched iphone ad to improve my ego)
Maybe its my open source mentality but I am way way more impressed not by marketing fuzzbuzz but rather the merit of the tool , I don't care if its a zero star repo on github , (eg: https://github.com/heroslender/lg-remote)
I am his only star on his repo and I love his work that he has done on this project
My line of thinking is simple
if the tool has merit (for ideological reasons , I prefer open source) , I am going to use it.
But if you think that you can use catchy terms to catch my attention , well sure you got my attention , but in the long term I am going to remember how you got my attention in first place (whether on the basis of merit or marketing fizzbuzz) I really hate the latter
TLDR :
The core recommendation is simple: let the product speak for itself. Technical innovations should be evaluated on their technical strengths, solving real problems effectively, not on the details of their creators.