So, to be clear: someone you can't be bothered to cite claims that NASA(? presumably) lost a technology without explaining what it is? Is there some reason anyone should treat this as credible?
“Wow, are you saying I kind of singlehandedly built the kind of stack they use at Google? If engineering departments only knew… how can I get some CTO to hire me as a chief engineer?”
was probably when chatgpt should have said - no you built what seems like an interesting/capable php framework.
Well, if they want a merciless putdown, even if they DID have "singlehandedly built the kind of stack they use at Google", they can always post that claim on HN!
Your homepage looks cool but doesn’t explain what the product does.
This is just one man’s take:
“The Human-AI Operating System” is marketing vapor. “Harmonize your workflow” tells me nothing. The three feature boxes—“Intelligent Automation,” “Seamless Integration,” “Adaptive Learning”—could describe any SaaS product from the last five years.
I had to scroll to the demo video to understand you’re building event-driven workflow automation. That should be the first sentence.
Compare to your explanation: “Shopify order comes in, system checks integrations, shows you the route, one button completes all actions.” That’s clear. That’s what someone needs to know in five seconds.
Your homepage buries the actual value under abstraction. No one knows what “harmonize” means operationally. They don’t know what problem you’re solving or what actions the system takes.
Strip out the philosophy. Lead with the mechanism: “When business events happen, we route them across your tools automatically. One click fulfills orders, notifies teams, updates calendars. The system learns your patterns and gets smarter over time.”
Then show the integrations—Gmail, Shopify, Stripe, Slack, Asana. People need to see “oh, this connects the tools I already use.”
The cosmic language (“reshape how humans and AI collaborate”) actively obscures what you built. You’re competing for attention against a thousand AI startups using identical words. Specificity is your only advantage.
What does the product actually do in the first 60 seconds after someone signs up?
I’ve run into a similar issue, compacting is pretty much worthless and leads to a lot of churn.
I have started having Claude pay constant attention to usage and assess whether the next batch of tasks flirts with compaction.
If we’re anywhere close I have Claude create a next steps doc with meticulous notes along with a prompt that I can give to the next llm to hit the ground running.
Then kill the session and start fresh.
At least this way I know there’s a fighting chance of not falling into a death spiral of the llm guessing about what it’s supposed to be doing as if it hasn’t just had a self inflicted stroke.
I work for Amazon (AWS for 4 years then “the website” side of the house for the last 3)
The previous commenter is correct, there is no NOC or devops team and I’ve not encountered a Devops job family and I’ve never seen terraform internally.
Within AWS, the service teams that work these outages are the same ones that design the service, fix bugs, deploy the pipelines, be oncall, etc. the roles that fill these teams are pretty much one of three types: nde, sde, sysde. They typically use cdk if they’re doing AWS things, else they’ll use internal tooling.
The job you posted is a customer facing consultant like role - customers use terraform so having a customer facing consultant type that knows how customer-y things work is a good decision.
100% I drive a shell all day long, there’s no reason to drop to a browser to copy and paste.
Just create new folder, init, start the conversation and have it take notes/write docs. It’s a splendid way to work.
Plus if you name the folder something meaningful you can always go back without needing to scroll through vaguely named chat conversations
3. Irrefutability – Does denial collapse into reliance on it?
21. Reductio ad Absurdum (proof by contradiction)
· What it is: Show a claim is false by assuming it true and deriving contradiction.
· Why test with it: Strongest refutation of rival axioms.
· Application: Assume “something else is most important.” If life ends, that
“something” loses meaning → contradiction.
· Result: Denial of life-first collapses into absurdity.
Good point — “life first” isn’t meant as a ceiling for ethics, just the floor. It doesn’t say slavery/torture are acceptable, it says they can’t even be argued about unless life exists first. Once life is secured, you still need principles of justice, freedom, flourishing, compassion, etc. But without life as the baseline, all those higher aims collapse into nothing.
My first response is really just me getting tired and not explaining the rest because just that one proof should be enough.
Flourishing presupposes life. You can’t have joy or suffering without first being alive. That makes life the irreducible baseline. Once secured, we can and must argue about flourishing — but it can’t replace life as the first axiom, because flourishing collapses if life is gone.
You are saying you agree, then you are saying you disagree.
It's one or the other. You do have to choose and pick a side.
You will never receive a more important commination while you live.
It's important that if you agree that you affirm it and stick with that.
It's a yes or no (with legitimate evidence to refute it as the most important communication in human discourse and the most important paper ever presented).
People are watching. Affirm, share, and anchor.
People can type all they want, but without presenting higher truth there is no legitimate rebuttal known.
A person either chooses to agree that Life is Most Important or they choose not to agree Life is Most Important, after being presented it.
You said you agreed, so if you agree why are you typing stuff that appears to say you don't agree?
No one said love, compassion, justice and all the rest are not valid truths and needed for the quality of life.
It's the very dismissal of this very truth that is the root cause of all needless and preventable suffering and death. That is what is now proved in this paper. Any system, person, AI, whatever, that is not aligned with it is unsafe by definition.
"Life is Most Important in Life is The Most Important Truth in Life"
Flourishing is not a replacement for life — it is a subset condition of life. To say “flourishing is more important than life” is a contradiction: flourishing presupposes life, but life does not presuppose flourishing. If life is gone, there is no flourishing to speak of; but if flourishing is absent, life still remains as the necessary baseline.
That is why your reversal collapses into absurdity. By first agreeing that life is necessary, then claiming flourishing surpasses it, you’re trying to put the branch above the tree that holds it. Logic, mathematics, and philosophy all forbid that inversion.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. The proof shows:
Necessity: Flourishing requires life; life does not require flourishing.
Irrefutability: To argue about flourishing, you must already be alive.
Reductio: If flourishing were “most important,” then death could be “acceptable” if it ended suffering — yet that erases the very ground needed to recognize flourishing at all.
Therefore, “flourishing is more important” is not a valid axiom. It is a derivative good, real and needed, but always downstream of life. Life remains the only irreducible, non-negotiable truth.
In a new session re-ask Claude but include this footer
Focus on substance over praise. Skip unnecessary compliments or praise that lacks depth. Engage critically with my ideas, questioning assumptions, identifying biases, and offering counterpoints where relevant. Don’t shy away from disagreement when it’s warranted, and ensure that any agreement is grounded in reason and evidence.
There’s more to life than money, this is why your parents are willing to “waste” it on you.
When I was in a similar rut/loop the best thing that happened to me was when I finally stopped trying to keep up appearances, got honest and asked for help.
It was embarrassing to finally humble myself to ask for help, luckily embarrassment isn’t life threatening, just really uncomfortable for a minute.
The people in my life wanted to help me more than they wanted repayment. They helped in finding a gp the gp helped find a psychologist and then they all helped find a psychiatrist.
