Every scientist does that at some point. I've easily crossed my fingers and hoped numerous times that code I'd written would work, especially on the first time. Even more rewarding in the superstition when the project is hard, and you're a bit daffy at the end.
It's a human thing.
Surely Feynman made jested comments before running experiments. I'm sure some digging in his wonderful books and letters will find many examples.
Back in the day we'd call this phase a design and workflow prototype as to not have to deal with all the technical components until the actual flow and concept is done.
Feels we're skipping these steps and "generating" prototypes that may or may not satisfy the need and moving forward with that code into final.
One of the huge benefits of things like Invision, Marvel, Avocode, Figma, etc. was to allow the idea and flow to truly get its legs and skip the days where devs would plop right into code and do 100s of iterations and updates in actual code. This was a huge gain in development and opened up roles for PMs and UI/UX, while keeping developer work more focused on the actual implementation.
Feels these generate design & code tools are regressing back to direct-Code prototypes without all that workflow and understanding of what should actually be happening BEFORE the code, and instead will return to the distractions of the "How", and its millions of iterations and updates, rather than "What".
Some of this was already unfortunately happening due to Figma's loss of focus on workflow and collaboration, but seems these AI generation tools have made many completely lose sight of what was nice about the improved workflow of planning, simply because we CAN now generate the things we think we want, doesn't mean we should, especially before we know what we actually want / need.
there is no need to this tedious, boring phase which you miss, especially since it still requires a significant of coding effort (eg to stitch a backend to figma).
you can vibe code a fully working UI+backend that requires way less effort so why bother with planning and iterating on the UI separately at all?
anybody who actually knows what they are doing gets 10x from these tools plus they enable non-coders to bring ideas to the market and do it fast.
That's always been the justification to skip this phase :). Tools have just changed. One-person to small-team wonders that could code and build directly made the same arguments.
My point isn't to stitch things to Figma, that's abhorrent to me as well. My point is to not get bogged down on the implementation details, in this case an actually working DB, those tables, etc, but rather less fidelity actual full flow concepts that can be generated and iterated.
Then that can be fed into a magic genie GPT that generates the front-end, back-end, and all that good jazz.
If the effort to produce websites goes tends to zero, the value of websites will surely tend to zero. Either issues with security and maintainability will be a break on this tendency or we will get to a point where generating a custom website will be something trivial that will be done on demand.
The thing is, the cost of producing websites is already pretty low, but the value of websites mostly derives from network effects. So a rising flood of micro crud saas products will not be likely to generate much added value. And since interoperability will drive complexity, and transformer based LLMs are inherently limited at compositional tasks, any unforeseen value tapped by these extra websites will likely be offset by the maintainability and security breaks I mentioned. And because there is a delay in this signal, there is likely to be a bullwhip effect: an explosion of sites now and a burnout in a couple of years in which a lot of people will get severely turned off by the whole experience.
If you need a website that needs prototyping in 2025, you're probably doing it wrong (eg launch on insta or something). But anyway, you can vibe iterate, and not just small iterations, but wholesale different value props and approaches, so why not. it's tangible, easier to test, and you get more meaningful feedback. I do this and it's 3-4x faster than working with a designer. And to be sure, we're not making websites, but protyping features into a saas app to test with users and ourselves.
The value of Amazon.com is not the cost to produce the HTML and JavaScript you see when you visit that website. It is a component of the Amazon business, and to Amazon it is extremely valuable, and to everyone else it would be almost worthless.
If someone has the idea for the next Amazon, as well as everything else you need beyond the idea, and tools like Supabase and Lovable allow them to get it off the ground, those tools are incredibly valuable to that person.
If someone’s ideas are worthless, their websites will be worthless.
I couldn't agree more. "Vibe coding" is pretty cool, but it's not sustainable at least with with current technology. You're much better off being a knowledgeable developer who can guide an an LLM to write code for you.
One thing I will agree on though is that LLMs make it easier to iterate or try ideas and see if they'll work. I've been doing that a ton in my projects where I'll ask an LLM to build an interface and then if I like it I'll clean it up and or rebuild it myself.
I doubt that I'll ever use Figma to design, it's just too foreign to me. But LLMs let me work in a medium that I understand (code) while iterating quickly and trying ideas that I would never attempt because I wouldn't and be sure if they'd work out and it would take me a long time to implement them visually.
Really, that's where LLMs shine for me. Trying out an idea that you would even be capable of doing, but it would take you a long time. I can't tell you how many scripts I've asked ChatGPT or similar to write that I am fully capable of writing, but the return on investment just would not be there if I had to write it all by by hand. Additionally, I will use them to write scripts to debug problems or analyze logs/files. Again, things that I am perfectly capable of doing but would never do in the middle of a production issue because they would take too long and wouldn't necessarily yield results. With an LLM, I feel comfortable trying it out because at worst I'd burn a minute or two of of time and at best I can save myself hours. The return on investment just isn't there if it would take me 30 minutes to write that script and only then find out if it was useful or not.
LLMs are better search. Google burned down the house to keep itself warm and held off on LLMs until it was inevitable and are now pulling up ahead. This is the logical conclusion. LLMs will be monetized and enshitified by ads.
Soon, some free smart LLM code generators will stop generating certain outputs and instead suggest using commercial components that have paid for promotion.
This can only be true of some products. Often there are a lot of concerns like privacy, white labeling, legal consequences that need to be considered _before_ you vibe code.
Honestly, after watching the full press conference twice, I suspect this meeting will go down in history as a canonical example of "what not to do as a politician".
It seems Zelensky was unaware he's dealing with Trump, his demeanor, and his presidency. Historical this or that is not applicable when dealing with someone like him. Trump will be Trump, and nobody should expect otherwise. Always best to understand and know your counterpart.
I'm definitely no Trump supporter, but objectively, prior to the blow-up, Trump was being somewhat reasonable. Maybe the most Presidential I've seen him. He reaffirmed support for NATO, continuing sending weapons to Ukraine, and generally wanting to push efforts to stop fighting, etc. He respectfully let Zelensky speak numerous times, at length, on difficult subjects, even things he didn't agree with. He even respectfully looked at photos of prisoners offered by Zelensky. Compare that to his prior behavior with the UK Prime Minister just a day before where he cut him off numerous times forcefully.
Zelensky made numerous mistakes, emotionally reacting and replying to reporters questions when not directed towards him, adding on more grievance, and generally not being as a politician needs to be. He clearly showed why being emotionally responsive doesn't work in a debate, court, or other significant and crucial meetings.
The supposed Mineral agreement may just be a way for Trump to look like he got concessions or something in exchange to look strong to his supporters, especially compared to his favorite archrival Biden.
If Zelensky had goals/aims he wished to reach, he should've done his best to ensure the truth and his viewpoint comes through when is applicable to the question being asked, but not offered voluntarily or in conflict with his ally's statement. His demeanor from the beginning of the broadcast was already chilly and stern. He should've let any need for venting to come out AFTER the signing, at the 2nd joint press conference scheduled for later in the day.
If you watch Vance's initial statement, it was relatively supportive of Ukraine and leaned to neutral at the end. Nothing negative outright that needed to be added on to. Zelensky erred here by asking if he could ask Vance a question afterwards which led to the blow-up and escalation, and ultimately really bad decision of telling Trump he's going to feel this or that. This was a classic mistake. Question was over, should've moved on. Logically no possible statement could've helped his efforts or goals, so he only had the potential to hurt himself. Further being emotional, combative, and from Trump's perspective, relatively disrespectful did not help him. The entire over answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.
He left in the worst possible position. He didn't get to his signing, nor his second opportunity for public statements post-signing, where he would've had clear gains, while forcefully stating whatever truths he feel were being left out or gaslit.
It seems Zelensky felt he needed to vent and express his people's pain, frustration, and anguish, but as the saying goes, time and place for everything, and unfortunately wasn't correct for either.
> The entire over answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.
I think the reverse. It's hard to predict what Trump will do next, but the straight forward reading is his plan was always to stop supporting Ukraine. The cherry on top would have been to bully the into giving the USA minerals rights without giving much in return - certainly not security guarantees.
Which means there is nothing Zelensky could get out of the USA from that meeting. But, he still has most of the rest of the world on his side, and he could use the meeting to get them to step up to the plate.
I think he did a very good job of exploiting the dynamics of the meeting to do just that. He ensured there was absolutely no doubt what the USA's position is going forward, so there are only two outcomes: Europe either let's Russia forcibly take over another country, or they wholeheartedly commit to Ukraine defence.
Making it undeniably obvious they are between a rock and a hard place is a great way to force action.
I wonder about that. Z was already in a pretty bad position on US-side, but this blowout only strengthens his position on EU side and in his own country. He also manages to get attention of anti-T people in US. Politically, it may have been the only 'good' move for him. If I was a leader of a country, I sure would not want to sign a 'deal' like this and be responsible for what it does to it ( which seems to suggest that Z is probably the least like other politicians, who would sell their own mother if the price was right ).
I obviously might be wrong, but I think there is a level of misunderstanding on what actually is happening.
People trivialize what went on as "needed to vent" and the like but if you look at the disagreement it was basically Trump was proposing give us a load of minerals, give your lands to Putin and in return I'll get a bit of paper from Putin saying he won't invade more. But no military guarantee to enforce that.
Zelensky says that's not good because Putin breaks all the agreements. Trump says he breaks other peoples agreements that won't happen with me. Zelensky points out the December 2019 Ukraine and Russia agreed to implement a "full and comprehensive ceasefire" happened under Trump and Putin broke it.
It was at that point Vance and Trump went all shouty because they'd been called out. If Zelesky had gone for Trump's agreement probably Trump would take the minerals, Putin would ignore the agreement and invade further and take over Ukraine in a similar way to how the Taliban made an agreement with Trump to be nice then they took over Afghanistan.
We have to separate his goals as a politician and his need for righteousness.
Trump gave him clear wins in his previous statements prior to the outburst. He committed to continued weaponry but emphasized he'd prefer the fighting to stop. He committed to NATO. He committed to getting back as much of the land, or more than you'd think, all clear progress from his previous statements and position in prior weeks.
Remember, the Mineral deal was already agreed upon. Trump, in my view, was being gracious and gave him additional wins. Had Zelensky taken those wins, NOT added an a whole unnecessary unprovoked debate with Vance, he would've ended that first meeting with those wins, EVEN with all that he said prior to the blow-up, some of which was already ungracious from Trump's perspective.
After the signing at the 2nd press conference he could've went into his whole need of security guarantees to protect their now mutual interests. He could've asked Trump to help him build "a big beautiful wall" to protect from the vicious x, y, and z, and still iterated, strongly to the press and world his needs, perspective, etc.
That's how a politician should've operated. Got there, carried out agreement which gives Trump face to his followers, taken the additional wins, and after all set, broadcast his views strongly and respectfully to the world, setting up a clear pathway to additional security in the future.
Win, win, win.
Instead he got none of that, and may even lose the current funding and support they were getting as Trump is still Trump and will likely want to extract some pain for his perceived slights.
Objectively, from a political perspective, we can see the outcome wasn't great, especially compared to the version of events that was being setup prior to the unnecessary confrontation.
Personally I really liked darcs, always felt more natural and intuitive to me.
Though fortunately was compatible and natively convertible to git and made the git takeover mostly smoothless.
At the time it felt that github and the rapid tooling and integrations developed in response cemented git's rise and downfall of everything else including darcs.
In a perfect world... Unfortunately with each update of Rocket.chat and Mattermost they've begun to limit or cripple the self-hosted, open-source, non-paid versions.
At some point the community will likely need to create on-going forks to maintain the nice features we take for granted today. For example, I'm working on alternative Mattermost SSO compatible out of the box with the latest open-source version. Mattermost self-hosted, with an alternative (non-paid per user) SSO is good for 99% of use cases, but then again, they'll start to see that and cripple away bit by bit.
I've recently heard good things about Campfire Once, may ultimately be better option compared to rundle everywhere.
Though Mattermost really is nice... sigh.. can't have nice things.
reply