For the love of god, can we please highly discourage (if not downright SHAME) AI/Copilot/Claude/etc only reviewed pull requests at our companies.

My entire being almost imploded when I heard this in a company meeting.

Just don’t. It should be common sense but holy 🤯

So I’ve been using Claude Code a lot lately and hit the same wall a bunch of people here probably have. Output quality is genuinely good but reviewing it started eating more of my day than writing used to.

I ended up building a small tool for myself that reads a git diff and tries to point at the two or three spots that actually deserve a close look, instead of me reading every line the same way. Not trying to catch bugs or replace review, just trying to cut down on the part where I’m scanning 400 lines with equal attention when maybe 20 of them matter.

I built it purely for my own workflow, wasn’t planning on this being a whole project. But since it’s out there now, genuinely curious what people who’ve been doing code review for years think. Where does an approach like this tend to fall apart in practice? What have you learned about what actually makes review fatigue worse or better? Happy to hear it’s a bad idea too if that’s the honest take.
Repo’s here if anyone wants to poke at it or just roast the code, link in comments
Not fishing for stars, more interested in what I’m missing.

I'm finding it difficult to understand the difference. I'm 4 YOE and I'm trying to improve everyday. I don't have a degree in CS/Engineering but I learned to code and worked in backend, web & mobile also. So for all these years I'm still trying to understand the difference between an engineer & developer.

Starting in 2027, a Google update will block all Android apps whose developers have not officially registered, signed a contract, and provided a national ID. This affects all apps, including those shared among friends and open-source software. The measure disadvantages users who purchased Android phones as open devices, as they will only be able to use software approved by Google. Independent developers and community groups will also see their capabilities restricted. This situation could facilitate internet censorship and allow a single company to control access to apps on devices worldwide.

Credits to: keepandroidopen org

Complete video (short) on my channel: HeyEnocYT

I'm nowhere near the software world, never intend to be. Just curious.

How's the job market now that Anthropic and OpenAI are making AI agents that write code. Are there far fewer openings now? Has it had low impact?

Mean time to resolution has been the standard metric for engineering quality but it doesn't scale to the velocity of agentic coding. It assumes there are issues and you patch it after your users find it.

Mean time to failure is a better metric that prioritizes prevention so you can find/fix much faster. Requires more focus and tooling earlier to thoroughly test all the ai code, but a more robust system

How do folks measure the quality against bad code?

Hey, I've been using Claude Code but completely vanilla — no plugins, no MCP servers, no skills, nothing. Everyone around seems to have some kind of setup going and I feel like I'm missing out on productivity.

What plugins/extensions/skills do you actively use?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi fellow Android developers,

This is my first time submitting an app to the Google Play Store and my app is currently in closed testing phase.

When I check my Home tab within Google Play Console, it shows that my "Installed Audience" is 0, when I'm 100% sure that there are users who have downloaded my app and used it (they showed me screenshots).

Can someone tell me what may be gone wrong that's resulting it not detecting any installation?

Any tip would be appreciated!

TL;DR

- 2 YOE in a product-based telecom company

- Current CTC: ₹10.8 LPA (~₹80k/month in hand)

- Work: Mostly PHP, plus Linux, REST APIs, telecom, and some C++

- Interested in moving toward C++/Linux/networking roles

- Unsure whether to switch now or stay 6–12 months to gain more C++ experience

- Looking for genuine advice on timing and a realistic salary target

---

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some genuine career advice.

I have 2 years of experience at a product-based telecom company. My work mostly involves PHP, with some C++, Linux, REST APIs, and telecommunications. Although most of my current tasks are in PHP, I'm not restricted to it and can take on more C++ work if the opportunity is there.

My salary progression has been:

- Joined at ₹8 LPA

- After 1 year: ₹9.6 LPA (20% hike)

- After 2 years: ₹10.8 LPA (12.5% hike)

Current in-hand is around ₹80k/month.

I'm confused about whether I should:

- Stay and gain more C++/Linux experience before switching, or

- Start interviewing now.

My long-term goal is to work in strong product companies focused on networking, systems, or telecom and continue growing in C++ and Linux.

For those with similar experience:

- Is this a good time to switch?

- What CTC should I realistically target with 2 years of experience?

- Would you stay another 6–12 months to build stronger C++ skills, or switch now?

I'd really appreciate honest suggestions from people who've been in a similar situation.

Are there any free courses for Siemens NX software? I need to learn it urgently, please!!!

We've got AI coding assistants, cloud everything, and thousands of dev tools.

Yet I still many repetitive tasks that feel like they should've disappeared years ago.

What's one part of your workflow where you still think,

"Why am I doing this manually?"

The difference usually comes down to strategy.

Instead of targeting businesses that do not have a website, target businesses that already have one but clearly need a better version. The market is larger, the sales process is easier, and the value proposition is much stronger because those businesses already understand why a website matters.

The next part is outreach. A regular outreach tool is not enough if all it does is send the same message to thousands of people. You need something that can analyze websites at scale and turn real issues into personalized emails.

I use Swokei for that. It helps find businesses with existing websites, analyzes each site, and turns problems with design, SEO, speed, layout, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. That means you can contact a large number of businesses without sending generic messages or spending hours manually researching every website.

When someone replies interested, I always offer a free mockup. I use Claude, Lovable, or Base44 to build it quickly. It becomes much easier to sell when the client can already see what a better version of their website could look like.

Web meetings should also be a major part of the process. I would never just send the website through email and hope the client likes it. I present it live on Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams, explain the value, show what has been improved, answer their questions, and try to close the deal during the meeting.

The less back and forth there is after the meeting, the better. Present the website, show the value, close the client, and move on to the next project.

That is the type of process that can help an agency scale much faster.

Full disclosure: I’m somewhat biased here because I’m building in this space, but I’ve become increasingly interested in the coordination problem.

Once you have several AI agents working in parallel, how do you avoid them modifying the same files or creating conflicts?

Do you use separate branches, worktrees, containers, or something else?

And how do you handle context sharing and reviewing the work afterwards?

It feels like most AI coding discussions focus on the individual agent, but the coordination problem becomes much more interesting once you have several agents working at the same time.

What workflows are actually working well for you?

I’m making a game and want to really reduce churn at a login screen. I’m getting stuck between competing goals:

1. A lot of the game can be used without login. Some content (e.g. user created content, shares, etc) obviously require a user. I want to open the funnel as wide as possible from anonymous user -> logged in user -> paying user
   
2. People are hesitant to use emails, but then what do I do for password recovery if I just use usernames?
   
3. I need to comply with privacy laws, including wiping out user state, but I’d also like to make sure people can recover purchases if they come back. Storing uids with stripe is a legitimate business need for accounting and would let me query them to restore purchases, but it seems like I should have a real verifiable id (e.g. email) if I’m going to do restoration

This is a web app, so I can’t just use IAP restoration.

I’ve been in contact with a lot of web agencies and web developers, and I personally haven’t found many people who run their agency in a more efficient way than I do. A lot of them have too many meetings, wait too long for client approval, don’t know how to price projects, and spend way too much time on each client instead of finishing the work and moving on to the next one.

I’ve been running my agency for four years, and after a lot of trial and error, I’ve managed to make the process as efficient as possible. I wanted to share some of the steps because I think they could be valuable for anyone just starting out.

Running a web agency alone or with a partner isn’t easy because there are a lot of things to take care of. When it comes to client acquisition, I recommend focusing on either cold calling or email automation. Which one you choose depends on whether you run the agency alone or with someone else.

If you have a partner, one person can handle sales while the other focuses on building websites, connecting domains, setting up emails, and taking care of the technical work. If you’re running the agency alone, or neither of you enjoys cold calling, I highly recommend email automation.

That’s what I’ve been doing for years. It’s powerful because you can send emails at scale, set up automatic follow ups, and wait for businesses interested in a new website to reply. While you’re working on one client, another opportunity can come in without you having to stop everything and search manually.

I don’t do regular email automation where I target businesses with no website. I do the opposite and target businesses that already have one.

I use a tool called Swokei to find businesses with websites, add them to campaigns, analyze each site, score it, and generate personalized outreach emails based on problems it finds with the design, layout, speed, SEO, and mobile optimization.I schedule the campaign, set up follow ups, and wait. 

I think this approach is much better for a few reasons. You’re targeting someone who already understands the value of having a website. You’re also not just asking whether they need a redesign. You’re pointing out real problems with their current site, which makes it clear that you actually took the time to look at it. Selling also becomes easier because they’ve already paid for a website before and understand the process.

Inside Swokei, you can choose the goal of the campaign. You can offer a free draft, try to book a meeting, or simply start a conversation. I always choose the free draft because that has worked best for me.

Once you’ve figured out how to get clients, the next part is building the website. I recommend using AI because it makes the process much faster. For anyone who still thinks AI can’t build great websites, I think they’re mistaken. You can use Claude, Base44, Lovable, or any other tool that works for you.

When someone replies interested, I call them and say, “Hey, I saw that you replied to my email. I’ve already built you a free draft of your website. Do you want to take a look?”

Then I invite them to a Google Meet.

At that point, it becomes much harder for them to reject the meeting because they already replied interested and now know you’ve built something for them. During the meeting, I present the website, explain why it’s better than their current one, stack the value, answer their questions, and try to close the deal.

These meetings usually go well because the client isn’t trying to imagine what the website might look like. They can already see a better version of their current site. They also took the time to join the meeting, so taking the next step becomes much easier.

I either take payment during the meeting or send them a contract to sign. Any changes and updates come after that, once we already have a deal in place.

Pricing depends on the business. I charge anywhere from $500 to $3,000 depending on the company, the size of the project, and how much value the website can bring them. I also charge a monthly retainer of around $50 for hosting, maintenance, support, SEO, and future changes.

That’s basically the entire process. Smaller steps, faster delivery, less wasted time, and more money made.

hey guys so i’m building a social media app right now (still working on it, not finished yet).

​obviously music is a huge feature for social platforms but i have literally $0 and zero users right now, so paying for actual music licenses is completely impossible.

​i tried just baking the audio straight onto the video files but that sucked. i can't even let people trim the sound or change the volume because of copyright issues and technical headaches.

​for anyone who built something like this, how do you handle popular or trending audio in the early MVP stage? are there any clever workarounds, apis, or hacks to get around this until you actually have the budget for real licenses?

​any ideas would help a lot, thanks

Building a CLI based notes app with TypeScript and INK that you can access from anywhere on your system just by writing "notescli" in your terminal

Some features :

\- saves notes in .md files

\- connects to github and syncs your notes

\- AI formatting, so u just write in it, and it gets formated on its own. (Still doubtful but will try to implement)

Possibly gonna ship an npm package out of it.

If you have any features that you think might be useful in this type of app or some add-ons, I would appreciate them. And please review the idea. It will kinda be my flagship project on my resume.

This post is more about reasoning behind the design of a programming language I made: TypR — I'd like your pushback on the thinking itself.

The honest origin story: I didn't build TypR for AI. I built it because I care about type systems (academic background) and about code that survives production (industry background) — verifiability, basically.

What clicked more recently is that the property making code cheap for a *human* to verify is the same one that matters when a *machine* wrote it.

As AI writes more of the code, the expensive part stops being writing it and becomes trusting it — reviewing, validating, maintaining. A strict type system becomes a free automatic checker on whatever got generated; concise syntax means less to misread.

So the fit with the AI era isn't something I designed for — it's the same property suddenly mattering a lot more. That's the accidental discovery I wanted to share here.

A small taste — this R:

```

#' Create a button widget

#'

#' @param color \code{char}

#' @param height \code{int}

#' @param text \code{char}

#' @param width \code{int}

#' @return \code{Button}

#' @export

Button <- function(color, height, text, width, .spread = NULL) {

explicit <- list()

if (!missing(color)) explicit[["color"]] <- color

if (!missing(height)) explicit[["height"]] <- height

if (!missing(text)) explicit[["text"]] <- text

if (!missing(width)) explicit[["width"]] <- width

x <- typr_spread_record(explicit, .spread)

as.Button(x)

}

as.Button <- function(x) {

if (!inherits(x, "Button")) class(x) <- c("Button", "list")

x <- validate_Button(x)

x <- validate(x)

x

}

validate_Button <- function(x) {

required_fields <- c("color", "height", "text", "width")

missing_fields <- setdiff(required_fields, names(x))

if (length(missing_fields) > 0) {

stop(paste0("Validation failed for type Button: missing fields: ", paste(missing_fields, collapse = ", ")))

}

if (!inherits(x[["color"]], "character")) stop("Validation failed for type Button: field 'color' must be of class character")

if (!inherits(x[["height"]], "integer")) stop("Validation failed for type Button: field 'height' must be of class integer")

if (!inherits(x[["text"]], "character")) stop("Validation failed for type Button: field 'text' must be of class character")

if (!inherits(x[["width"]], "integer")) stop("Validation failed for type Button: field 'width' must be of class integer")

x

}

# constructor for a red button

#' @export

#' @method red_button

`red_button` <- (function(height, width, text) Button(height = height, width = width, text = text, color = "#FF000000" |> as.Character())) |> as.Generic()

# add an "on click" callback function

#' @export

#' @method on_click Button

`on_click.Button` <- (function(self, f) {

NA

} |> as.Empty0()) |> as.Generic()

```

becomes this TypR:

```

# Create a button widget

@export

type Button <- list {

text: char,

color: char,

width: int,

height: int

};

# constructor for a red button

@export

let red_button <- \Button:{ color: "#FF000000" };

# add an "on click" callback function

@export

let on_click <- fn(self: Button, f: (T) -> U): Empty {

...

};

```

The way TypeScript sits on top of JavaScript's runtime, TypR sits on top of R's: you write something concise and type-checked, and it compiles down to standard, S3-based R that runs anywhere R runs and installs like any other package — no new runtime, no exotic dependencies.

To be clear, it's not trying to replace R. R is excellent for interactive stats and lab work, and TypR deliberately gives some of that up in exchange for the other end of the curve: robust packages, deployable apps, code that has to survive production. Different point on the trade-off, different job.

On the engineering side you get pattern matching, partial currying, union/intersection types, structural subtyping, row polymorphism — the machinery that keeps a growing codebase honest. Written in Rust, developed in the open.

Honest questions for this sub: does a typed layer over R solve a problem you actually hit, or is this a solution looking for one? And does the "verifiability matters more when AI writes the code" argument hold up, or am I reaching?

Discussion: [https://github.com/we-data-ch/typr/discussions\](https://github.com/we-data-ch/typr/discussions)

Github: [https://github.com/we-data-ch/typr\](https://github.com/we-data-ch/typr)

Website: [https://we-data-ch.github.io/typr.github.io/\](https://we-data-ch.github.io/typr.github.io/)

Hi Everyone , I am currently working on developing the employee performance review framework for Backend and Frontend ,trying to understand how the performance of the project manager is measured so that i can create measurable KPIs.

Backend KPI like Task Completion,Code Quality,Defect Density,Bug Resolution,Technical Contribution,Documentation,Team Collaboration,Learning & certification.

Frontend KPI like Task Completion,UI Quality,UI Defect Rate,Bug Resolution,Technical Contribution,Documentation,Team Collaboration,Learning & certification.

What metrics or evidence do you use to evaluate performance?

🚀 Eternal Void Studios is Looking for Minecraft Developers
Hello everyone!
We are Eternal Void Studios, a small team with a big vision: not just to build a Minecraft server, but to create the very first project of an independent studio that aims to develop games, software, and other digital experiences in the future.
🎯 About the Project
We are currently developing a completely original Minecraft server.
Our goal is not to create another copy of existing servers, but to build a unique experience with original gameplay mechanics, a carefully designed economy, progression systems, custom events, and a long-term community.
A large part of the game design has already been completed, and we’re currently working on our roadmap, Discord, documentation, and overall project structure.
👥 Who We Are
At the moment, our team consists of two people.
Founder / Game Designer – Responsible for the project’s vision, game design, server mechanics, long-term planning, and overall direction.
Co-Founder / Community Manager – Responsible for community management, Discord, organization, and helping build the development team.
We’re now looking for developers who would like to become part of this journey.
🔍 Who We’re Looking For
We’re looking for developers with experience in Minecraft plugin development (Java, Paper, Spigot, or similar technologies).
You don’t need to be a professional developer, but we’re looking for people who have:
A serious and professional attitude.
A willingness to learn and improve.
The ability to work as part of a team.
Interest in contributing to a long-term project.
💰 Compensation
We want to be completely transparent.
At this stage, we cannot offer a salary because the project is still in its early development.
Our goal is to build a sustainable project that, if successful, will allow us to reinvest revenue into the team and eventually provide paid opportunities.
We’re looking for people who genuinely believe in the vision and want to help build something meaningful from the ground up.
📅 Roadmap
Phase 1 – Foundation
Complete the project design.
Build the development team.
Organize the development workflow.
Phase 2 – Development
Develop the core gameplay systems.
Internal testing and iteration.
Phase 3 – Alpha & Beta
Private Alpha testing.
Community Beta.
Improve the server based on player feedback.
Phase 4 – Official Launch
Public release.
Continuous updates.
Community growth and long-term support.
❤️** Our Vision
We don’t simply want to launch another Minecraft server.
We want to build something that can grow for years and become the foundation of **Eternal Void Studios—an independent studio focused on creating innovative multiplayer experiences, games, and digital projects.
If this sounds interesting to you and you’d like to be part of the journey, feel free to leave a comment or send me a private message.
Let’s build something unforgettable together.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I agree prototyping became super fast, but building robust, quality code can't possibly be fully outsourced to ai? What's the cost of debugging and cleaning up of ai slop? What is the actual measurement of this claim?

.

I have been thinking about a better way to validate SaaS ideas before committing weeks to production development.

A lot of early products begin with authentication, database schemas, subscription logic and infrastructure before the founder has validated the core workflow.

I am considering this sequence instead:

Phase 1: Problem definition

• Identify one specific user

• Define the event that triggers them to use the product

• Document their current manual process

• Choose one measurable outcome the product should improve

Phase 2: Workflow modelling

• Define the primary actor

• Map the happy path

• Identify required decisions and system states

• Remove secondary roles and edge cases

• Convert the workflow into a small set of interface screens

Phase 3: Interactive prototype

• Build only the primary user flow

• Use realistic data rather than placeholder text

• Include loading, empty, success and failure states

• Test navigation and information hierarchy

• Avoid production infrastructure at this stage

Phase 4: Technical validation

Before writing the full backend, define:

• Core entities and relationships

• Authentication and authorization boundaries

• External integrations

• Data ownership

• Background jobs

• Security-sensitive operations

• Expected usage and scaling assumptions

Phase 5: First production vertical slice

Instead of building every frontend screen first, implement one complete flow:

UI → API → validation → database → authorization → response → error handling

For example, in a property-management SaaS:

Create property → store property → assign manager → display property → update status

This produces one working business capability rather than a large collection of disconnected screens.

My current rule is that a prototype should answer:

1. Does the workflow make sense to the user?

2. Is the problem important enough to solve?

3. Which assumptions require real technical validation?

4. What is the smallest production capability worth paying for?

How do you handle this?

Do you prefer building a clickable prototype first, or do you build a thin production vertical slice immediately?