Tejas Shah
131 posts
Tejas Shah
@SaaSBender
Median state of confusion. Building the future of personal finance
if you don’t hold your macbook like this you’re not agentmaxxing enough
Being a failed founder is now better than being a successful employee. I'm seeing this everywhere. Decagon created a special "founder office." Lovable brags about how many Y Combinator founders joined their team. It's obvious what's happening: companies don't care which big tech company you worked at anymore. They want to know if you've ever started something. Sure, most of these founders failed - successful ones wouldn't be job hunting. But in America, startup failure isn't really risky anymore. In the AI era, the scarce skill isn't technical knowledge. It's owning problems end-to-end. Having initiative. Working like a founder. So if you're still a cog in some big company machine, getting yelled at by your boss, worried about promotions - maybe it's time to start something. Here's the beautiful part: if you fail, you can join Anthropic's founder program. If you succeed, you become the next Anthropic. Either way, you win. This makes sense. Society needs people who can handle entire business functions, not just specialized tasks. That's what founders do. As AI gets better, founders get more powerful. They handle diverse work, they're accountable for results, and AI amplifies all of that. A founder might go from 10x to 100x to 1000x productivity. But specific roles? AI might replace those entirely. The better AI gets, the more obsolete narrow jobs become. Founder might be the best job of the future. Best case: you become the next Sam Altman. Worst case: you join Dario's company and make bank. Pretty good risk profile. #Entrepreneurship #Startups #Founder #AI #TechCareers #Anthropic #YCombinator #FutureOfWork #Innovation
For 50 years, software engineering ran on code rationing. Writing code was expensive, so we rationed it carefully through roadmaps, RFCs, prioritization meetings, and scope reviews. This created a role: the No Engineer. No, that won't scale. No, we don't have bandwidth. No, that's out of scope. No, we need a design doc first. The No Engineer was valuable for 50 years. Every "no" saved real money. Their judgment was the rationing system. LLMs will be the end of code rationing. Code is cheap now. And while the No Engineer is explaining why something can't be done, the Yes Engineer has already shipped three versions of it. If you're a Yes Engineer, the next decade is yours.
For 50 years, software engineering ran on code rationing. Writing code was expensive, so we rationed it carefully through roadmaps, RFCs, prioritization meetings, and scope reviews. This created a role: the No Engineer. No, that won't scale. No, we don't have bandwidth. No, that's out of scope. No, we need a design doc first. The No Engineer was valuable for 50 years. Every "no" saved real money. Their judgment was the rationing system. LLMs will be the end of code rationing. Code is cheap now. And while the No Engineer is explaining why something can't be done, the Yes Engineer has already shipped three versions of it. If you're a Yes Engineer, the next decade is yours.
this may be a skill issue on my part but coding agents don't push you enough towards reusability of feedback just gave notes to my agent about how it doing optimistic updates wrong, but there's not really a 'step 2' that's encouraged of codifying that knowledge for the future
@mattpocockuk @housecor 4-5 grill with docs in I started noticing claude picking up the adr and context during my grill session. And it magically aligned with the thoughts I had before the words came out of my brain.
i'm waiting for people to discover that those enterprise-y boilerplate heavy coding patterns boost LLM performance