True, but imo there's also nothing particulrarly special about telling your agent to (re)build something that already existed (in various flavours) before.
I packed the thought into "consider if your vision is really distinct enough": make it better, make it weird, or make it recreationally (i.e. by hand). Make it opinionated, in Minecraft, whatever, but give it at least some new substance.
It's also fine to do Hacker Tube or Hacker Times (it's really not about this specific instance) for the 100th time, but if nothing else distinguishes it from the others than "I wanted to have one too", maybe it's not the curiosity-inspiring thing to share on HN we should strive for.
Nor was it implied. I agree with the poster, especially in the case of point-and-release agentic coding. Not saying it's to be banned if there's no additional substance, but worth asking yourself what you've contributed apart from token spend.
I was merely pointing at how some people seems to have some impression that the idea should be original and not a duplicate as if it's some sort of objective truth that they have found out.
In reality it's just some false belief they have.
There is no guarantee that the first implementation of the idea will be the first to capture the attention of the public.
Also it's perfectly fine to have someone post a duplicate implementation of an idea and get no reception as well.
True, but imo there's also nothing particulrarly special about telling your agent to (re)build something that already existed (in various flavours) before.
I packed the thought into "consider if your vision is really distinct enough": make it better, make it weird, or make it recreationally (i.e. by hand). Make it opinionated, in Minecraft, whatever, but give it at least some new substance.
It's also fine to do Hacker Tube or Hacker Times (it's really not about this specific instance) for the 100th time, but if nothing else distinguishes it from the others than "I wanted to have one too", maybe it's not the curiosity-inspiring thing to share on HN we should strive for.
None of these are listed in the guidelines on HN.
Nor was it implied. I agree with the poster, especially in the case of point-and-release agentic coding. Not saying it's to be banned if there's no additional substance, but worth asking yourself what you've contributed apart from token spend.
Subjective opinions. People can do whatever they want.
Yep, thank you simsla.
My specific examples aren't listed, but the guidelines on what to submit support my point I think:
> If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
You seem to be confused. Every opinion on here is subjective, and no one was suggesting that the poster should be arrested.
I was merely pointing at how some people seems to have some impression that the idea should be original and not a duplicate as if it's some sort of objective truth that they have found out.
In reality it's just some false belief they have.
There is no guarantee that the first implementation of the idea will be the first to capture the attention of the public.
Also it's perfectly fine to have someone post a duplicate implementation of an idea and get no reception as well.