People like Elon suggest 120 hrs or 996 for the employees that work under him implementing his ideas-- the people rolling up their sleeves and putting hammers to nails. Most of the people in an org do not need to be involved in deep level thinking.
> nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week
- Elon[0]
Yet... I listed a few... He goes on to suggest 80 is good with spikes into 100. I mean Elon is notorious for putting in those long hours himself[1], but he's definitely wrong in the quote.
So... who do you think those demands are for? He seems pretty clearly to be demanding it from engineers to execs. That also matches the experience of everyone I've known to have worked at SpaceX, including both programmers and aerospace engineers. Same with Tesla.
Also, thought I'd drop a link to this 996 HN post from the other week[2].
Honestly, I'm not sure who you're referring to, because when not taken literally that would seem to cover literally every employee.
Elon does this because being able to order all those people around makes him feel special and important, not because it actually works.
Study after study proves that productivity drops off rapidly when people are tired and stressed - which should be common sense, but apparently it's too common for some of our notables to understand.
So instead of actual work output you get productivity theatre. Everything is dramatic and shouting happens, but - for example - Tesla still doesn't have anything resembling FSD while more modest companies are much further along.
Musk's use of social media and his involvement in recreational activities is way too much for 80h/week. He's clearly more of a 4 day workweek type tho shy about it.
That's part of the problem, but I also notice the new hiring managers are incentivized to hire (or replace) employees to make their mark on the company. They then advocate for "their guys" the ones they recruited over the incumbents that are the unwilling dinosaurs in their eyes.
Interesting I had the same problem and suffered in grades back in school simply because I couldn't memorize much without understanding. However, I seemed to be the only one because every single other student, including those with top grades, were happy to memorize and regurgitate. I wonder how they're doing now.
Is there any way to move the chat window to the primary side bar? Having two side bars open takes up a lot of space. Not sure why this pattern persists in these VScode forks.
Generally in VSCode and its clones you can drag the window anywhere you like. I've been using my Copilot in the lower area which spans multiple panels, to give myself a little more viewing space.
Satya's talked about how some acquired companies such as LinkedIn and Github are allowed to operate independently for the most part and keep their culture. Or else we'd all be using Teams instead of the LinkedIn messaging feature!
I'm going back and forth between Windsurf and Github Copilot right now. Windsurf's development iteration speed is much fast and features are added faster.
For example, Github only autocompletes based on what file you have opened in the current editor's tab. Windsurf indexes your entire code base and seems able to autocomplete based on what other files you have in your project. Autocomplete also spans across multiple lines and open tabs.
Windsurf's agentic tool (Cascade) can run terminal commands and read the output without opening a terminal like copilot. It can undo the agent's actions easier than Copilot. Though I think Cursor is superior in that regard, it can undo multiple checkpoints.
Still evaluating Windsurf but it, Cursor, and Claude Code are all more sophisticated than Github copilot at the moment. I'm sure copilot will catchup but by that time the other tools may have already iterated ahead.
If that's so, then why is Codex such an inferior product to Claude Code? And why haven't they already built an code editor or at least VS Code extension yet?
Venture capitalists aren't ignorant, their business revolves around knowing exactly what churn is. Cursor has raised $1 billion with a $9 billion valuation. VC's willing to put in that much money has looked at their data and knows what the retention rate is.
If their plan is to make their money back selling the company, then they don't care about revenue or retention rate. The company just need to look like it might be doing well.
No, venture capitalists aren't ignorant, but their goal also might not be to build and run a healthy company long term. It might be to turn a quick profit by selling a startup to another company.
I don't think that's the case here. Windsurf wasn't leading the agentic coding market. They were doing a decent job but others are bigger. Cursor has the brand recognition and Claude is getting a lot of recognition too. MS has github copilot which is still a good brand and Google has been catching up with Gemini.
OpenAI has a new thing called codex but it isn't very good yet. I tried it and it's super flaky. Lot's of errors and it gets stuck when that happens. OpenAI needs something good urgently because agentic coding is the key AI feature right now and the blue print for non coding agentic solutions later. Cursor is probably too expensive currently and windsurf looks like their models are a bit better.
So, OpenAI gains something they don't have: a credible developer option with an active user base and some core IP in the form of training data and know how as well as custom models that they can fold into openai.
3 billion is a lot but not if you consider that world + dog in the enterprise world will be spending big time on AI subscriptions for their developers. This stops being optional in 2025. Millions of developers will be on paid subscriptions permanently very soon. If you start a new job you can expect to get a laptop and a paid subscription to whatever is the agentic coding tool of choice in your new company.
OpenAI wants double digit percentages of that revenue. 1M users paying something like 50$/month would amount to 600M revenue per year. I think the prices will go up and the amount of active users as well. Reason: as these tools are getting better they start saving non trivial amounts of engineering time. At that point you have to value the tool in terms of developer cost. Not 1 to 1. But it's worth a sizable portion of that.
I work in a small startup as the CTO. This is an no-brainer for us. We're cash strapped so we only spend on important things. This would be one of those things. We're doing things I previously would have needed to expand the team for because I would have had no capacity to do those things in the current team. So, in terms of value for money spending on these tools is easy to justify.
I get lots of people are skeptical about AI stuff here. But I would say that a lot of those people suffer from a short term focus and bias. Three years ago none of this stuff existed. Now it's a multi billion$ market that is set to grow rapidly. Stuff is getting better at a very rapid pace. Just stating facts here. 3 billion is a bargain if Openai can make this acquisition work for them. They are buying time to market here. They don't have a year to figure it out. In a year or so this market will be carved up and locked into hard to change year long SAAS contracts. At that point getting people to switch tools will get harder and harder.
> OpenAI has a new thing called codex but it isn't very good yet. I tried it and it's super flaky. Lot's of errors and it gets stuck when that happens.
I agree with this, not sure the experience of everyone else but I felt like Claude Code is more useful.
Meanwhile, I'm keeping tabs on Aider and open-codex, what other options are there?
Thanks for mentioning open-codex. Did not notice that there is a codex fork which is open to other models (update: totally missed that original codex allows that too now). How do you like it? Especially in comparison to Claude Code?
Thanks for answering! I also skipeed that the original codex now allows for other models (perhaps they pulled the open-codex part???). To be fair, I prefer Claude Code to both codexes.
Not replace but it allows me to scale what we do for things we previously would have dropped because it would require growing the team, which we can't really afford. It's a case of getting a bit more out of developers in terms of quantity and scope (mostly this) of what they do. Not a full developer but enough for it to be meaningful. But it's not nothing either. Worth paying for. AI is a lot cheaper than a developer is so I don't need to replace my developers. I prefer people that are multi disciplinary and able to pick up new skills as they are needed. Agentic AIs are good for that because they give you enough to work with that you can get productive with whatever you need to wrap your head around in little to no time.
Companies can be a bit slow to update their hiring processes to their needs. But good developers should be ahead of the curve in any case. For this, just be proficient with the tools.
Be ready for the inevitable interview question "so, AI ... explain me how you are using it and what you are doing with it?". Much easier to answer that question if you have some meaningful time of routinely using this stuff behind you and can articulate what works and doesn't work for you.
And if they don't ask, that's actually a great question to ask back if you get the opportunity "I've been using agentic tooling, how are you guys using that a <company name>? Also I would like a subscription to <my favorite AI tool> if I work for you". Stuff like that makes you stand out as ambitious and interested in the future. There are of course going to be places that maybe don't like that. But then ask yourself whether you'd want to work there. So, either way, you learn something.
I would look forward to the next 20 years and not backward to the last 20.
The whole frontend/backend distinction did not really exist until the web. And infrastructure is definitely something that should be automated far more than it currently is. If it needs babysitting by a team of devops, you just created a lot of work rather than automating/solving it. Tedious and repetitive. It has "AI will make this a lot easier" written all over it.
So, just be ready for the ambition level to be raised for developers. Learn to build the whole system, not just bits and pieces of the system. Lean on AI to get stuff done and figure things out. It's all just code. None of it is really that hard. But it can be a lot of work if you do all of it manually.
And let's be honest, agentic tools are showing promise and great progress but they are nowhere close to independently working on existing code bases. That's not how I use them. But they are great for problem solving, debugging, prototyping, exploring some new languages and APIs, and generally taking care of more tedious coding tasks.
> I wanna pick your brain a lil. Are you saying agentic AI has helped you replace devs that you would otherwise need for your startup?
I need fewer devs to get more work done... but interestingly it has put a premium on experience because a lot of the "human work" is debugging and fixing where the LLM missed the mark. So less headcount, higher skill required.
