zlacker

[return to "Cursor's latest “browser experiment” implied success without evidence"]
1. ryanis+Gd1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 20:05:40
>>embedd+(OP)
The amount of negativity in the original post was astounding.

People were making all sorts of statements like: - “I cloned it and there were loads of compiler warnings” - “the commit build success rate was a joke” - “it used 3rd party libs” - “it is AI slop”

What they all seem to be just glossing over is how the project unfolded: without human intervention, using computers, in an exceptionally accelerated time frame, working 24hr/day.

If you are hung up on commit build quality, or code quality, you are completely missing the point, and I fear for your job prospects. These things will get better; they will get safer as the workflows get tuned; they will scale well beyond any of us.

Don’t look at where the tech is. Look where it’s going.

◧◩
2. alfalf+Ck1[view] [source] 2026-01-16 20:38:26
>>ryanis+Gd1
What a silly take. Where the tech is is extremely relevant. The reality of this blog post is it shows the tech is clearly not going anywhere better either, as they seem to imply. 24 hours of useless code is still useless code.

This idea that quality doesn't matter is silly. Quality is critical for things to work, scale, and be extensible. By either LLMs or humans.

[go to top]