zlacker

[return to "Welcome to Gas Town"]
1. mccoyb+V6[view] [source] 2026-01-01 23:25:16
>>gmays+(OP)
The article seems to be about fun, which I'm all for, and I highly appreciate the usage of MAKER as an evaluation task (finally, people are actually evaluating their theories on something quantitative) but the messaging here seems inherently contradictory:

> Gas Town helps with all that yak shaving, and lets you focus on what your Claude Codes are working on.

Then:

> Working effectively in Gas Town involves committing to vibe coding. Work becomes fluid, an uncountable that you sling around freely, like slopping shiny fish into wooden barrels at the docks. Most work gets done; some work gets lost. Fish fall out of the barrel. Some escape back to sea, or get stepped on. More fish will come. The focus is throughput: creation and correction at the speed of thought.

I see -- so where exactly is my focus supposed to sit?

As someone who sits comfortably in the "Stage 8" category that this article defines, my concern has never been throughput, it has always been about retaining a high-degree of quality while organizing work so that, when context switching occurs, it transitions me to near-orthogonal tasks which are easy to remember so I can give high-quality feedback before switching again.

For instance, I know Project A -- these are the concerns of Project A. I know Project B -- these are the concerns of Project B. I have the insight to design these projects so they compose, so I don't have to keep track of a hundred parallel issues in a mono Project C.

On each of those projects, run a single agent -- with review gates for 2-3 independent agents (fresh context, different models! Codex and Gemini). Use a loop, let the agents go back and forth.

This works and actually gets shit done. I'm not convinced that 20 Claudes or massively parallel worktrees or whatever improves on quality, because, indeed, I always have to intervene at some point. The blocker for me is not throughput, it's me -- a human being -- my focus, and the random points of intervention which ... by definition ... occur stochastically (because agents).

Finally:

> Opus 4.5 can handle any reasonably sized task, so your job is to make tasks for it. That’s it.

This is laughably not true, for anyone who has used Opus 4.5 for non-trivial tasks. Claude Code constantly gives up early, corrupts itself with self-bias, the list goes on and on. It's getting better, but it's not that good.

◧◩
2. anthon+06b[view] [source] 2026-01-05 17:14:41
>>mccoyb+V6
a response like this is confusing to me. what you are saying makes sense, but seems irrelevant. something like gas town is clearly not attempting to be a production grade tool. its an opinionated glimpse into the future. i think the astethic was fitting and intentional.

this is the equivalent of some crazy inventor in the 19th century strapping a steam engine onto a unicycle and telling you that some day youll be able to go 100mph on a bike. He was right in the end, but no one is actually going to build something usable with current technology.

Opus 4.5 isnt there. But will there be a model in 3-5 years thats smart enough, fast enough, and cheap enough for a refined vision of this to be possible? Im going to bet on yes to that question.

◧◩◪
3. leftbe+iob[view] [source] 2026-01-05 18:34:44
>>anthon+06b
in 3-5years, sure, just like we are all currently using crypto to pay for groceries and smart contracts for all legal matters.
◧◩◪◨
4. anthon+1vb[view] [source] 2026-01-05 19:04:13
>>leftbe+iob
... no one ever used crypto to buy things. most engineers are currently already using AI. such a dumb comparison that really just doesnt pass the sniff test.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jbl0nd+5uc[view] [source] 2026-01-05 23:54:04
>>anthon+1vb
Not quite true. This pub's changed hands now but it was possible to pay in bitcoin for several years.

https://www.wired.com/story/london-bitcoin-pub/

[go to top]