[mediaman]

I don't get the widespread hatred of Gas Town. If you read Steve's writeup, it's clear that this is a big fun experiment.

It pushes and crosses boundaries, it is a mixture of technology and art, it is provocative. It takes stochastic neural nets and mashes them together in bizarre ways to see if anything coherent comes out the other end.

And the reaction is a bunch of Very Serious Engineers who cross their arms and harumph at it for being Unprofessional and Not Serious and Not Ready For Production.

I often feel like our industry has lost its sense of whimsy and experimentation from the early days, when people tried weird things to see what would work and what wouldn't.

Maybe it's because we also have suits telling us we have to use neural nets everywhere for everything Or Else, and there's no sense of fun in that.

Maybe it's the natural consequence of large-scale professionalization, and stock option plans and RSUs and levels and sprints and PMs, that today's gray hoodie is just the updated gray suit of the past but with no less dryness of imagination.

[hyperpape]

> If you read Steve's writeup, it's clear that this is a big fun experiment:

So, Steve has the big scary "YOU WILL DIE" statements in there, but he also has this:

> I went ahead and built what’s next. First I predicted it, back in March, in Revenge of the Junior Developer. I predicted someone would lash the Claude Code camels together into chariots, and that is exactly what I’ve done with Gas Town. I’ve tamed them to where you can use 20–30 at once, productively, on a sustained basis.

"What's next"? Not an experiment. A prediction about how we'll work. The word "productively"? "Productively" is not just "a big fun experiment." "Productively" is what you say when you've got something people should use.

Even when he's giving the warnings, he says things like "If you have any doubt whatsoever, then you can’t use it" implying that it's ready for the right sort of person to use, or "Working effectively in Gas Town involves committing to vibe coding.", implying that working effectively with it is possible.

Every day, I go on Hacker News, and see the responses to a post where someone has an inconsistent message in their blog post like this.

If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself.

[an0malous]

I agree, I’m one of the Very Serious Engineers and I liked Steve’s post when I thought it was sort of tongue in cheek but was horrified to come to the HN comments and LinkedIn comments proclaiming Gastown as the future of engineering. There absolutely is a large contingent of engineers who believe this, and it has a real world impact on my job if my bosses think you can just throw a dozen AI agents at our product roadmap and get better productivity than an engineer. This is not whimsical to me, I’m getting burnt out trying to navigate the absurd expectations of investors and executives with the real world engineering concerns of my day to day job.

[potatolicious]

> "If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself."

If I can be a bit bold and observe that this tic is also a very old rhetorical trick you see in our industry. Call it Schrodinger's Modest Proposal if you will.

In it someone writes something provocative, but casts it as both a joke and deadly serious at various points. Depending on how the audience reacts they can then double down on it being all-in-good-jest or yes-absolutely-totally. People who enjoy the author will explain the nonsensical tension as "nuance".

You see it in rationalist writing all the time. It's a tiresome rhetorical "trick" that doesn't fool anyone any more.

[theptip]

I think both can be true, no?

Multi-agent coordination is obviously what's next.

And, Gas Town itself might never amount to more than a proof-of-concept.

Personally I'd put my money on whatever Anthropic build to do this job, rather than a layer someone else builds atop CC.

Remember when code LLMs were just APIs, and folks were building their own coding scaffolds like Aider and Cursor? Then Claude Code steamrolled everyone; they win because they can do RL on the whole agentic scaffold.

Any multi-agent system will have the same properties, i.e. whatever traits (e.g. the GUPP) and tool expertise (e.g. using Beads) are required to effectively participate in a swarm will get RL'd into the coding model, and any attempts to build alternate scaffolds will hit impedance mismatches because they do not fit the shape of what was RL'd (just like using non-CC UIs with Anthropic models gives you worse results than using the CC UI).

I say this with love - Yegge is putting forth some excellent ideas here. Beads seems like a great concept to add to CC ASAP; storing the TODO state in a repo would mean we don't need MCPs onto issue trackers. And figuring out what orchestration concepts are required will need a lot more trial and error, but these existence proofs are moving the frontier forward.

[csallen]

These are some very tortured interpretations you're making.

- "what's next" does not mean "production quality" and is in no way mutually exclusive with "experimental". It means exactly what it says, which is that what comes next in the evolution of LLM-based coding is orchestration of numerous agents. It does not somehow mean that his orchestrator writes production-grade code and I don't really understand why one would think it does mean that.

- "productively" also does not mean "production quality". It means getting things done, not getting things done at production-grade quality. Someone can be a productive tinkerer or they can be a productive engineer on enterprise software. Just because they have the word "product" in them does not make them the same word.

- "working effectively" is a phrase taken out of the context of this extremely clear paragraph which is saying the opposite of production-grade: "Working effectively in Gas Town involves committing to vibe coding. Work becomes fluid, an uncountable substance that you sling around freely, like slopping shiny fish into wooden barrels at the docks. Most work gets done; some work gets lost."

If he wanted to say that Gas Town wrote production grade code, he would have said that somewhere in his 8000-word post. But he did not. In fact, he said the opposite, many many many many many many times.

You're taking individual words out of context, using them to build a strawman representing a promise he never came close to making, and then attacking that strawman.

What possible motivation could you have for doing this? I have no idea.

> If you say two different and contradictory things...

He did not. Nothing in the blog post explicitly says or even remotely implies that this is production quality software. In addition, the post explicitly, unambiguously, and repeatedly screams at you that this is highly experimental, unreliable, spaghetti code, meant for writing spaghetti code.

The blog post could not possibly have been more clear.

> ...because you did it to yourself.

No, you're doing this to his words.

Don't believe me? Copy-paste his post into any LLM and ask it whether the post is contradictory or whether it's ambiguous whether this is production-grade software or not. No objective reader of this would come to the conclusion that it's ambiguous or misleading.

[drewbug01]

> If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself.

Our industry is held back in so many ways by engineers clinging to black-and-white thinking.

Sometimes there isn’t a “final” answer, and sometimes there is no “right” answer. Sometimes two conflicting ideas can be “true” and “correct” simultaneously.

It would do us a world of good to get comfortable with that.

[akst]

yeah the messaging is somewhat insecure in that it preemptively seeks to invalidate criticism by just being an experiment while simultaneously making fairly inflammatory remarks about nay sayers like they'll eat dirt if they don't get on board.

I think it's possible to convey that you believe strongly in your idea and it could be the future (or "is the future" if you're so sure of self) while it still being experimental. I think he would get less critics if he wasn't so hyperbolic in his pitch and had fewer inflammatory personal remarks about people who he hasn't managed to bring on side.

People I know who communicate like that generally struggle to contribute constructively to nuanced discussions, and tend to seek out confrontation for the sake of it.

[MarsIronPI]

Additionally, Steve seems very adamant about the fact that anyone who doesn't adopt vibe coding is going to be obsolete, and the ones who adopt it best are going to win big.

[taneq]

> "What's next"? Not an experiment.

I think what’s next after an experiment very often is another experiment, especially when you’re doing this kind of exploratory R&D.

[columk]

>We should take Yegge’s creation seriously not because it’s a serious, working tool for today’s developers (it isn’t). But because it’s a good piece of speculative design fiction that asks provocative questions and reveals the shape of constraints we’ll face as agentic coding systems mature and grow.

I have no doubt Yegge would agree wholeheartedly with that take. He wants the community to explore these ideas with him.

The bizarre thing is that Gas Town has been popping up in mainstream news and media. It's being discussed in my economics podcasts.

It's relevant for them because it hints at a very disruptive idea: The hierarchy of Gas Town, when extrapolated, suggests that agents won't just replace your workers, it will replace your business too. It suggests that in a few years there could be a tool that is effectively a software agency, which means companies like Anthropic could eat any software shop that can't compete.

[rlt]

I think you just proved mediaman's point.

[GoatInGrey]

Keep in mind that Steve has LLMs write his posts on that blog. Things said there may not reflect his actual thoughts on the subject(s) at hand.

[ludicity]

I thought it was harmless(ish) fun, but David Gerard put out a post stating that Yegge used Gas Town to push out a crypto project that rug pulled his supporters, while he personally walked away with something between $50K to $100K from memory.

I suppose that has little to do with the technical merits of the work, but it's such a bad look, and it makes everyone boosting this stuff seem exactly as dysregulated/unwise as they've appeared to many engineers for a while.

I met Sean Goedecke for lunch a few weeks ago, who uses LLMs a bunch, and is clearly a serious adult, but half the folks being shoved in front of everyone are behaving totally manic and people are cheering them on. Absolutely blows my mind to watch.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/01/22/steve-yegges-gas-town-vib...

[skybrian]

That was very weird. In the post where he was arguably "shilling," he seems to have signposted pretty well that it was dumb, but he will take the money they offered:

> $GAS is not equity and does not give you any ownership interest in Gas Town or my work. This post is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any token. Crypto markets are volatile and speculative — do not risk money you can’t afford to lose.

...

> Note: The next few sections are about online gambling in all its forms, where “investing” is the buy-and-hold long-form “acceptable” form of gambling because it’s tied to world GDP growth. Cryptocurrencies are subject to wild swings and spikes, and the currency tied to Gas Town is on a wild swing up. But it’s still gambling, and this stuff is only for people who are into that… which is not me, and should probably not be you either.

In the next post he said he wasn't going to shill it any more, and then the price collapsed and people sent him death threats on Twitter. It probably would have collapsed anyway. Perhaps there was supposedly some implicit bargain that he shouldn't take the money if he wasn't going to shill? Well, there's certainly no rule saying you have to do that.

I think he's not very much to blame for taking the money from degenerate gamblers, and the cryptocurrency idiots are mostly to blame for their own mistakes.

[piker]

> If you read Steve's writeup

Personally I got about 3 paragraphs into what seemed like a twelve-page fevered dream and filed it under "not for me yet".

[chwtutha]

> And the reaction is a bunch of Very Serious Engineers who cross their arms and harumph at it for being Unprofessional and Not Serious and Not Ready For Production.

Exactly!

[Xmd5a]

> OK! That was like half a dozen great reasons not to use Gas Town. If I haven’t got rid of you yet, then I guess you’re one of the crazy ones. Hang on. This will be a long and complex ride. I’ve tried to go super top-down and simplify as much as I can, but it’s a bit of a textbook.

[michaelcampbell]

Yegge's been around a long, long time and this is about within a standard deviation of his normal writings, at least in style. I haven't read much of his LLM/AI related stuff, but none of Gas Town left me with any sort of "huh" reaction, knowing the author.

[saidarembrace]

For better or worse, we are making history.

[tikhonj]

A sense of art and whimsy and experimentation is less compelling when it's jumping on the hypest of hype-trains. I'd love to see more folk art in programming, but Gas Town is closer to fucking Beeple than anything charming.

[pydry]

>I often feel like our industry has lost its sense of whimsy and experimentation from the early days, when people tried weird things to see what would work and what wouldn't.

Remember the days when people experimented with and talked about things that werent LLMs?

I used to go to a lot of industry events and I really enjoyed hearing about the diversity of different things people worked on both as a hobby and at work.

Now it's all LLMs all the time and it's so goddamn tedious.

[Ronsenshi]

> I used to go to a lot of industry events and I really enjoyed hearing about the diversity of different things people worked on both as a hobby and at work.

I go to tech meetups regularly. The speed at which any conversation end up on the topic of AI is extremely grating to me. No more discussions about interesting problems and creative solutions that people come up with. It's all just AI, agentic, vibe code.

At what point are we going to see the loss of practical skills if people keep on relying on LLMs for all their thinking?

[TeMPOraL]

Well, LLMs are an engineering breakthrough of the degree somewhere between the Internet and electricity, in terms of how general-purpose and broadly-applicable they are. Much like them, LLMs have the potential to be useful in just about everything people do, so it's no surprise they've dominated the conversation - just like electricity and the Internet did, back in their heyday.

(And similar to the two, I expect many of the initial ideas for LLM application to be bad, perhaps obviously stupid in hindsight. But enough of them will work to make LLMs become a lasting thing in every aspect of people's lives - again, just like electricity and the Internet did).

[CuriouslyC]

I like gastown's moxie, it's fun, and seems kind of tongue in cheek.

What I don't like is people me-tooing gastown as some breakthrough in orchestration. I also don't like how people are doing the same thing for ralph.

In truth, what I hate is people dogpiling thoughtlessly on things, and only caring about what social media has told them to care about. This tendency makes me get warm tingles at the thought of the end of the world. Agent smith was right about humanity.

[FuckButtons]

I mean, isn’t the whole point of Ralph that it’s an allusion to “I’m in danger” because Claude in a for loop can do your job?

[Barrin92]

>it is a mixture of technology and art, it is provocative

There's no art (or engineering) in this and the only provocative thing about it is that Yegge apparently decided to turn it into a crypto scam. I like the intersection of engineering and art but I prefer if it includes both actual engineering and art, 100 rabbits (100r.co) is a good example of it, not a blog post with 15 AI generated images in it that advocates some unholy combination of gambling, vibe coding and cryptocurrency crap.

[wrs]

Perhaps it was his followup post about how people are lining up to throw millions of VC dollars at his bizarre whimsical fever dream that disturbs people? I’m all for arts funding, but…

[square_usual]

Isn't the point that he refused them? VCs can be dumb (see the crypto hype, even the recent inflated AI raises) so I wouldn't put too much stock in what they think is valuable.

[SomaticPirate]

It isn't though. It crossed the chasm when Steve (who I would like to think is somewhat comfortable after writing a book, holding a director level position at several startups) decided to endorse an outright crypto pump and dump.

When he decided to monetize the eyeballs on the project instead of anything related to the engineering. Which, of course, Steve isn't smart enough to understand (in his own words) and he recommends you not buy but he still makes a tidy profit from it.

Its a memecoin now... that has a software project attached to it. Anything related to engineering died the day he failed to disavow the crypto BS and instead starting shrilling it.

What happened to engineers not calling out BS as BS.

[ewoodrich]

Okay yeah, not great...

https://steve-yegge.medium.com/bags-and-the-creator-economy-...

[vanderZwan]

> I don't get the widespread hatred of Gas Town. If you read Steve's writeup, it's clear that this is a big fun experiment. It pushes and crosses boundaries, it is a mixture of technology and art, it is provocative.

Because I actually have an arts degree and I know the equivalent of a con artist in a rich people arts gallery bullshitting their way into money when I see one.

And the "pushing and crossing boundaries" argument has been abused as a pathetic defense to hide behind shallowness in the art world for longer than anyone in this discussion board has been alive. It's not provocative when it's utterly predictable, and in this case the "art" is "take the most absurd parody of AI culture and play it straight". Gee whiz how "creative" and "provocative".

[tracerbulletx]

Its because people are treating the experiment like a serious path forward for their business.

[JamesTRexx]

"our industry has lost its sense of whimsy"

The first thing I thought as I read his post and saw the images of the weasels was that he should make a game of it. Maybe name it Bitborn.

[bdcravens]

> I don't get the widespread hatred of Gas Town.

Fear over what it means if it works.

[mrkeen]

I work in a typical web app company which does accounting/banking etc.

A couple of days ago I was sitting in a meeting of 10-15 devs, discussing our AI agents. People were raising issues and brainstorming ways around the problems with AI. How to make the AI better.

Our devs were occupied doing AI things, not accounting/banking things.

If the time savings were as promised, we should have been 3 devs (with the remaining devs replaced by 7-10 AI agents) discussing accounting/banking.

If Gas Town succeeds, it will just be the next toy we play with instead of doing our jobs.

[xyzsparetimexyz]

Has it written anything of quality?

[q3k]

It reads like the ramblings of a smart person experiencing a psychotic episode.

[wahnfrieden]

First Yegge read?

[sailfast]

I didn't read this article as hate at all, FWIW. It was a pretty measured review of what it is and what it isn't with some much clearer diagrams of the mental models.

[freedomben]

Links to Steve's writeup for Gas Town for those who don't have them yet:

[Medium post]: https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...

[HN Discussion]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46458936

[matkoniecz]

And https://steve-yegge.medium.com/bags-and-the-creator-economy-... where you can read about its author scamming people

[joquarky]

> I often feel like our industry has lost its sense of whimsy and experimentation from the early days, when people tried weird things to see what would work and what wouldn't.

The gold rush brogrammers took over. They only care about money and they have displaced most of the more whimsical (but competent) "nerds" over the past decade.

[itsafarqueue]

It’s not the whimsy. It’s that the whimsy is laced with casual disdain, a touch too much “let me buy you a stick of gum and show you how to chew it”, a frustrated tenor never stated but dog whistled “you dumb fucks”. A soft sharp stink of someone very smart shoving that fact in your face as they evangelise “the obvious truth” you’re too stupid to see.

And maybe he’s even right. But the reaction is to the flavour of chip on the shoulder delivery mixed into an otherwise fun piece.

[cap11235]

Don't forget a bit of crypto! People are being way to nice going "I don't understand, but ...". Fuck him.

[inadequatespace]

> Maybe it's because we also have suits telling us we have to use neural nets everywhere for everything Or Else, and there's no sense of fun in that.

Yes, and using it a justification to offshore/ layoff

[DonHopkins]

Hey, I didn't get a harumph out of that VSE crossing his arms at me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Bp8SqYrnE

[PKop]

> it's clear that this is a big fun experiment.

No it's not clear, because at every turn we're told we're supposed to take it seriously, that there's something there there and that's it's a very real hint at some very real future not whimsical nonsense made for a laugh. You can see this in Steve's writing, calling out the non-believers. Then when you call the bluff, well "it's just a prank bro chill out."

> It pushes and crosses boundaries

What does this mean? This is fluff talk nonsense.

Something that's burning through thousands of dollars, producing what exactly?, is deserving of our respect why?

[HDThoreaun]

Why can't you take experiments seriously? It's a prediction of what the future could look like, not a production ready tool. If youre problem with it is "they took our jobs" sure that makes sense, but if youre problem is that it is a crappy tool then youre not looking at it correctly.

[guelo]

This is just not true. Yegge is serious and thinks Gas Town is the next big thing.

[Keyframe]

He did us once with Javascript prophecy. Has this man no decency?? :)

[cap11235]

For his income, yes.

[DonHopkins]

Hi mediaman! I'm totally there with you and Steve on the whimsy and experimentation! And your tolerant attitude gives me the Dutch courage to post this.

I've been reading Yegge since the "Stevey's Drunken Blog Rants™" days -- his rantings on Lisp, Emacs, and the Eval Empire shaped how I approach programming. His pro-LLM-coding rants were direct inspiration for my own work on MOOLLM. The guy has my deep respect, and I'm intrigued by his recent work on Sourcegraph and Gas Town.

Gas Town and MOOLLM are siblings from that same Eval Empire -- both oriented along the Axis of Eval, both transgressively treating LLMs as universal interpreters. MOOLLM immanentizes Eval Incarnate -- https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/eval/E... -- where skills are programs, the LLM is eval(), and play is but the first step of the "Play Learn Lift" methodology: https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/tree/main/skills/play-le....

The difference is resource constraints. Yegge has token abundance; I'm paying out of pocket. So where Gas Town explores "what if tokens were free?" (20-30 Claude instances overnight), MOOLLM explores "what if every token mattered?" Many agents, many turns, one LLM call.

To address wordswords2's concern about "no metrics or statistics" -- I agree that's a gap in Gas Town. MOOLLM makes falsifiable claims with receipts. Last night I ran an Amsterdam Fluxx Marathon stress test: 116+ turns, 4 characters (120+ character-turns per LLM call), complex social dynamics on top of dynamic rule-changing game mechanics. Rubric-scored 94/100. The run files exist. Anyone can audit.

qcnguy's critique ("same thing multiplied by ten thousand") is exactly the kind of specific feedback that helps systems improve. I wrote a detailed analysis comparing the two approaches -- intellectual lineage (Self, Minsky's K-lines, The Sims, LambdaMOO), the "vibecoded" problem (MOOLLM is LLM-generated but rigorously iterated, not ship-and-hope), and why "carrier pigeon" IPC architecture is a dark pattern when LLMs can simulate many agents at the speed of light.

an0malous raises a real fear about bosses thinking "throw agents at it" replaces engineering. Both systems agree: design becomes the bottleneck. Gas Town says "keep the engine fed with more plans." MOOLLM says "design IS the point -- make it richer." Different answers, same problem.

lowbloodsugar mentions building a "proper, robust, engineering version" -- I'd love to compare notes. csallen is right that "future" doesn't mean "production-grade today."

Analysis: https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/designs/GASTOW...

MOOLLM repo: https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm

Happy to discuss tradeoffs or hear where my claims don't hold up. Falsifiable criticism welcome -- that's how systems improve.

[DonHopkins]

Adventure Uplift — Building a YAML-to-Web Adventure Compiler with Simulated Computing Pioneers:

I ran a 260KB session log where I convened a simulated symposium of computing pioneers to design an Adventure Compiler — a tool that compiles YAML adventure definitions that run on MOOLLM under cursor into standalone deterministic browser games requiring no LLM at runtime.

The twist: the "attendees" include AI-simulated tributes to Will Wright, Alan Kay, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Ted Nelson, Ken Kahn, Gary Drescher, and 25+ others — both living legends and memorial candles for those who've passed. All clearly marked as simulated tributes, not transcripts.

What emerged from this thought experiment:

- Pie menus as the universal interface (rooms, inventory, dialogue trees)

- Sims-style needs system with YAML Jazz inner voice ("hunger: 1 # FOOD. FOOD. FOOD.")

- Prototype-based objects (Self/JavaScript delegation chains)

- Schema mechanism + LLM = "teaching them to fly"

- Git as the collaboration operating system

- ToonTalk-inspired "programming by petting" for terpene kittens

- Speed of Light simulation — the opposite of "carrier pigeon" multi-agent architectures

On that last point: most multi-agent systems use message passing between separate LLM calls. Agent A generates output, it gets detokenized to text, sent over IPC, retokenized into Agent B's context. MOOLLM inverts this. Everything happens in one LLM call.

The spatial MOO map (rooms connected by exits) provides navigation, but communication is instantaneous within a call. Many agents, many turns, zero latency between them — and zero token requantization or semantic noise from successive detokenization/tokenization loops.

The session includes adversarial brainstorming where Barbara Liskov challenges schema contracts, James Gosling questions performance, Amy Ko pushes accessibility, and Bret Victor demands immediate feedback. Each critique gets a concrete response.

Concrete outputs: a working linter, architecture decisions, 53 indexed topics from "Food Oriented Programming" to "Hidden Objects as Invisible Infrastructure."

This is MOOLLM's Play-Learn-Lift methodology in action — play with ideas, extract patterns, lift into reusable skills and efficient scripts.

Session log (260KB, 8000+ lines): https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/examples/adven...

MOOLLM repo: https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm

The session uses representation ethics guidelines — all simulated people are clearly marked, deceased figures invoked with memorial candles, and the framing is explicitly "educational thought experiment."

Happy to discuss the ethics of simulating people, the architecture decisions, or how this relates to my earlier Gas Town comparison post.

[rulelet]

We have a different take than Gastown. If AI behaves unreliably and unpredictably, maybe the problem is the ask. So we looked at backend code and decided it was time to bring in more declarative programming. We are already halfway there with declarative frontend (React) and declarative database (SQL). Functional programming is an answer, but functional programming didnt replace object oriented programming because of practical reasons.

So even if the super serious engineers are serious, they should watch their back. Eventually enough guardrails will be created or even the ask will change enough for a lot of automation to happen. And make no mistake, it is automation no different than having automated testing replace armies of manual testing or code generation or procedural generation or any other machine method. And who is going to be left with jobs? People who embrace the change, not people who lament for the good old days or who can't adapt.

Sucks but just how the world works. Sit on the bleeding edge or be burned. Yes there is an "enough" but I suspect enough is around people willing to look at Gastown or even make their own Gastown, not the other side.

[AtlasBarfed]

Yeah where he probably Burns like a million dollars of money.

Just for fun!

[walthamstow]

He's paying $600 a month for 3x Claude Max subs. It's in his article.

[ares623]

It's a "let them eat cake" write up.

[Johnny_Bonk]

Yeah it's unbelievably tiresome, endless complaints from people pushing up their glasses complaining, ITS A PROJECT ABOUT POLECATS CALLED GAS TOWN MADE FOR FUN, read that again, either admire it and enjoy it or quit the umpteenth complaint about vibecoding.