I lived in London for 15 years. Southbank and the Barbican were some of my favourite places there.
Barbican is particularly interesting since its part of the city of London, and whereas the city mostly contains bad neoclassical designs that feel dystopian and inhuman Barbican feels like a fresh breath of air.
It has a human centric design and it uses water and greenery to temper the concrete.
Its interesting that crowds in connection to or within the southbank center also always feel lively. I'm uncertain of why, perhaps the concrete makes a counterpoint to humanness and makes us focus on the people in the vicinity.
Perhaps its the cultural programming. But the end result for me was that whenever I was around these blocks of concrete I was almost always in a good mood.
This matches my experience, especially "don’t draw the owl" and the harness-engineering idea.
The failure mode I kept hitting wasn’t just "it makes mistakes", it was drift: it can stay locally plausible while slowly walking away from the real constraints of the repo. The output still sounds confident, so you don’t notice until you run into reality (tests, runtime behaviour, perf, ops, UX).
What ended up working for me was treating chat as where I shape the plan (tradeoffs, invariants, failure modes) and treating the agent as something that does narrow, reviewable diffs against that plan. The human job stays very boring: run it, verify it, and decide what’s actually acceptable. That separation is what made it click for me.
Once I got that loop stable, it stopped being a toy and started being a lever. I’ve shipped real features this way across a few projects (a git like tool for heavy media projects, a ticketing/payment flow with real users, a local-first genealogy tool, and a small CMS/publishing pipeline). The common thread is the same: small diffs, fast verification, and continuously tightening the harness so the agent can’t drift unnoticed.
>The failure mode I kept hitting wasn’t just "it makes mistakes", it was drift: it can stay locally plausible while slowly walking away from the real constraints of the repo. The output still sounds confident, so you don’t notice until you run into reality (tests, runtime behaviour, perf, ops, UX).
Yeah I would get patterns where, initial prototypes were promising, then we developed something that was 90% close to design goals, and then as we try to push in the last 10%, drift would start breaking down, or even just forgetting, the 90%.
So I would start getting to 90% and basically starting a new project with that as the baseline to add to.
No harm meant, but your writing is very reminiscent of an LLM. It is great actually, there is just something about it - "it wasn't.. it was", "it stopped being.. and started". Claude and ChatGPT seem to love these juxtapositions. The triplets on every other sentence. I think you are a couple em-dashes away from being accused of being a bot.
These patterns seem to be picking up speed in the general population; makes the human race seem quite easily hackable.
If the human race were not hackable then society would not exist, we'd be the unchanging crocodiles of the last few hundred million years.
Have you ever found yourself speaking a meme? Had a catchy toon repeating in your head? Started spouting nation state level propaganda? Found yourself in crowd trying to burn a witch at the stake?
Hacking the flow of human thought isn't that hard, especially across populations. Hacking any one particular humans thoughts is harder unless you have a lot of information on them.
> How do I hack the human population to give me money
Make something popular or become famous.
> hack law enforcement to not arrest me
Don't become famous with illegal stuff.
The hack is that we live in a society that makes people think they need a lot of money and at the same time allows individuals to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and influence and many people being ok with that.
This is the most common answer from people that are rocking and rolling with AI tools but I cannot help but wonder how is this different from how we should have built software all along. I know I have been (after 10+ years…)
I think you are right, the secret is that there is no secret. The projects I have been involved with thats been most successful was using these techniques. I also think experience helps because you develop a sense that very quickly knows if the model wants to go in a wonky direction and how a good spec looks like.
With where the models are right now you still need a human in the loop to make sure you end up with code you (and your organisation) actually understands. The bottle neck has gone from writing code to reading code.
> The bottle neck has gone from writing code to reading code.
This has always been the bottleneck. Reviewing code is much harder and gets worse results than writing it, which is why reviewing AI code is not very efficient. The time required to understand code far outstrips the time to type it.
Most devs don’t do thorough reviews. Check the variable names seem ok, make sure there’s no obvious typos, ask for a comment and call it good. For a trusted teammate this is actually ok and why they’re so valuable! For an AI, it’s a slot machine and trusting it is equivalent to letting your coworkers/users do your job so you can personally move faster.
1. Write a generic prompts about the project and software versions and keep it in the folder. (I think this getting pushed as SKIILS.md now)
2. In the prompt add instructions to add comments on changes, since our main job is to validate and fix any issues, it makes it easier.
3. Find the best model for the specific workflow. For example, these days I find that Gemini Pro is good for HTML UI stuff, while Claude Sonnet is good for python code. (This is why subagents are getting popluar)
Haha, almost, we add an extra word and some signifiers.
"Vi ses i röken och dimman! "
It actually means something specific. We tend to use a smoke machine a lot on our nights, one time the police showed up because they thought the place was on fire. The symbols at the end signifies the electricity of nights and the headphones is of course a reference to our social media headphone walks.
This is fixed catchphrase we use in all our communications.
Totally fair. It’s a real monthly music night, not software.
The Show HN part is the site + media (so people can see the scale/atmosphere), and the thing we’re trying to share is the operating model: how you get strangers to show up alone, feel safe, and come back, without big budgets.
As the other poster commented Kolibri is hummingbird in Swedish. The name was inspired by 2 things. A feeling of lightness and ease connected with carefree summer nights and also the intros of all versions of pacific by 808 state.
Kul att höra från dig! Det är många olika personer runt Kolibri som känner dig från Berlin som t.ex. Henrik Maneuever så det var extra kul när du besökte oss.
We do agree with this, we both prefer attending small gigs ourselves for that exact reason. Also, all bands has to start somewhere, it takes many small gigs to create an audience and develop their craft. Writing and producing songs is one thing but there is no substitution to the experience to see what moves in people listening live. The majority big stadium bands started with endless small non paying gigs, this is the foundation of the music business.
Strong spring lineup. Tonight is Hidden Lines, end of Feb Sydney Valette (Paris), and 20 March Liminal Project (UK) + Yugoslavia (ES) with Inåt Bakåt Records. On 11 April there’s a one-day festival in Norrköping (Kallsup, Poloklubben, Zack Zack Zack, etc.).
We’ve been experimenting a bit with how much we pre-announce (small room, and we don’t want to spread people too thin), but the schedule on the site is the best place to check. Instagram is our main outreach: @kolibrinkpg
Barbican is particularly interesting since its part of the city of London, and whereas the city mostly contains bad neoclassical designs that feel dystopian and inhuman Barbican feels like a fresh breath of air.
It has a human centric design and it uses water and greenery to temper the concrete.
Its interesting that crowds in connection to or within the southbank center also always feel lively. I'm uncertain of why, perhaps the concrete makes a counterpoint to humanness and makes us focus on the people in the vicinity.
Perhaps its the cultural programming. But the end result for me was that whenever I was around these blocks of concrete I was almost always in a good mood.
reply