Does this conversation exist in 2026? If we can all code everything quickly and SaaS has no value then just build your own in a weekend and put GitHub out of business?
Github is an ecosystem and its biggest moat is the number of people that use it.
To make a replacement, not only do you have to improve on support for every major use case at a technical level (no easy task, to put it mildly), you also have to make it so compelling to use that Github users will abandon Github en masse.
Someone with an LLM assisted IDE has the theoretical potential to improve on all major Github features. But to make their replacement compelling enough to get folks to leave Github? Not a chance.
Just a note for Dads doing more than their parents - it’s quality more than quantity. Be fully present with your kids more than trying to kill yourself fitting more hours in. That’s what matters.
Bad parenting tends to be more of the type that isn’t engaged. Kids don’t hate you for going to work. They are hurt if you come home and ignore them.
If you’re a dad and live in the same house as your kids the time comes naturally… men have been purposefully fleeing it throughout history.
So its not a matter of “killing yourself to get more time” … its a matter of not abandoning your kids and wife to make time for your hobbies or whatever
Ture, but also, know that sometimes that just happens - the kids want to be solo, not talk, etc. Easy to kill yourself thinking you need to be perfect.
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical as well. I remember dad being home, but not specifically focused on me. Sometimes seeing dad at home, doing his thing, was a great way of learning.
I think as kids we learned by example more than hands-on-taught.
You should definitely follow your instincts here, but wanting researchers to show you how to raise your kids is a fools errand IMO. Put those highly tuned parental instincts to use!
If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.
I see your point about different qualities of science, but the wording of "highly tuned parental instincts" is still bad. The instincts are the same in both situations, and they're highly flawed. Science should override instincts in lots of situations.
And if you ask basically any kind of science "how do I best accomplish x?", that science will have a "presciptive" answer, so I don't see how parenting science is any more prescriptive then chemistry.
I'm GenX, but had kids a little late, so most of my kid's friends either 1. have Millennial parents or 2. are raised by their Boomer grandparents (parents not much in the picture). The differences in how these two sets of caretakers behave is astounding. Take a typical visit from the friend to my house to play with my kid:
The friends who are with their grandparents show up. Grandpa parks his car in my driveway, and walks the kid to my door. We greet, kid runs off to play, and we shoot the shit for a while, asking how things have been going, maybe Grandpa wants to check out the latest on my woodworking project, whatever. Then Grandpa says goodbye, I'll be back later, and heads out.
The friends who are with their Millennial parents show up. Dad parks his car waaaaay out by the curb, never even going on my property. Kid gets out of the car and walks himself to my door. Dad speeds away in his car, never even acknowledging us. Dad comes back to pick the kid up, same thing. Parks way far away, texts his kid, and the kid excuses himself and runs all the way out to the car. I don't even know the names of any of my kid's friends' Millennial parents!
I'm a Millennial, and I do something much like this intentionally. I make it a point to explicitly put my kids into situations where they are responsible for themselves and are uncomfortable because of it.
The transition to adulthood was rough for me for several reasons, and looking back I think that was one of them - my parents always did things for me, but never expected me to do things on my own.
I almost certainly go overboard with this, but that's the nature of things.
No kids of my own, but my niece is 16. Wife and I took her to dinner when she was ~10, and afterward she said she wanted some ice cream. Sure. We drove to the grocery store on the way home (it's an older store, not huge) and handed her a $10 bill, told her to go get whatever flavor she wanted.
She freaked out. She'd been so terrified by a litany of "stranger danger" stories that the thought of just going into a store alone - a small store with one public entrance - was alien to her. We told her she could do it herself, or not have ice cream, because we weren't doing it for her. She went.
I'm glad to hear you're pushing your kids this way.
Since we're doing anecdata, I experience the exact opposite.
What's most crazy to me is how somehow almost all boomers are more addicted to smartphones than gen Z and Alpha. They'll have their grandkids over, and they'll be glued to their smartphone instead of interacting with those kids.
As a boomer, I'm sure it's because we didn't grow up with smart phones and therefore never learned good habits around them. Hell I was probably near 50 when I got my first one.
I think it's similar to kids who grow up with alcohol vs those who don't. The ones not exposed go off to college and go completely nuts.
Silent Americans are the most fucked up generation ever. They are the ones actually responsible for most of the bullshit that people attribute to Boomers.
It’s plausible he is as imagined. But selling to Google makes that irrelevant. His job is to serve their bottom line and they’ve done a lot of work on ads etc. He won’t maintain control.
This is plausible. Assuming it’s true, we would see the adoption of vibe coding at a faster rate amongst inexperienced developers. I think that’s true.
A counterpoint is Google saying the vast majority of their code is written by AI. The developers at Google are not inexperienced. They build complex critical systems.
But it still feels odd to me, this contradiction. Yes there’s some skill to using AI but that doesn’t feel enough to explain the gap in perception. Your point would really explain it wonderfully well, but it’s contradicted by pronouncements by major companies.
One thing I would add is that code quality is absolutely tanking. PG mentioned YC companies adopted AI generated code at Google levels years ago. Yesterday I was using the software of one such company and it has “Claude code” levels of bugginess. I see it in a bunch of startups. One of the tells is they seem to experience regressions, which is bizarre. I guess that indicates bugs with their AI generated tests.
Fairly certain they do something like Anthropic does, they count the acceptance rate or something else that is fairly "optimistic" (my org has a code acceptance rate of 98,5% per the platform dashboard).
So, to clarify, me accepting the suggestion and then correcting it by hand still counts as N LoC accepted.
reply