I find the opposite. I tend to think through the problem myself, give cursor/claude my understanding, guide it through a few mistakes it makes, have it leave files at 80% good enough as it codes and gets stuck, and then spend the next 20 min or so cleaning up the changes and fixing the few wire up spots it got wrong.
Often I will decompose the problem into smaller subproblems and feed those to cursor one by one slowly building up the solution. That works for big tickets.
For me the time saving and force multiplier isn't necessarily in the problem solving, I can do that faster and better in most cases, but the raw act of writing code? It does that way faster than me.
Yeah that’s been my approach as well - and honestly I’m not even sure that it’s necessarily faster, it’s just different. Sometimes I feel like getting my hands dirty and writing the code myself - LLMs can be good for getting yourself unstuck when you’re facing an obstacle too. But other times, I’d rather just sit back and dictate requirements and approaches, and let the robot dream up to implementation itself.
This is my one pet peeve with the web version of Claude. I always forget to tell it not to write code until further down in the conversation when I ask for it, and it _always_ starts off by wanting to write code.
In cursor you can highlight specific lines of code, give them to LLM as context, etc.. it's really powerful.
It searches for files by itself to get a sense of how you write code, what libraries are available, existing files, fixes its own lint / type errors (Sometimes, sometimes it gets caught in a loop and gives up), etc..
Hey just wanted to say that I've been using this for the past week since I saw your post on Reddit and it's honestly been a joy to use and subjectively it feels like it's reduced the friction I usually feel when architecting app state.
I always used valtio prior to this and while it's good I always disliked having to use react-query separately and never got around to just creating something reusable. activeQuery is great.
Only minor feedback would be that sometimes the ExcludeMethods type seems to interfere with the expected type on other components and so I have to map or use "as ActualType".
Thanks for sharing this, I'm definitely reaching for this first on my projects.
"What emotionally drives you, if not the assessments of your peers? Why excel at work, why find a partner, why do your best to be better everyday?"
It's fun and it makes me happy. People in my life are smart people but they're just as flawed as I am, what they think of me also changes over time. Why would I build the foundation of my life and career on such shaky ground?
My theory based on nothing but internal reflections
A lot of people's minds are raised from a young age to make judgements and comparisons with others. Their minds are told that one must be useful to be valuable, and that simply _being_ isn't enough.
Over time those bad habits of the mind are so ingrained and automatic that we assume them to be part of "me". "My" thoughts, "my" ideas and so we don't question their assumptions or where they came from.
It takes conscious effort to be able to change those habits into something more positive, or to be able to center your mind to a point where those habits seen as just other thoughts and don't have the same "weight" behind them.
We're an ever changing process and being able to judge and adjust is a useful skill. It's just that doing that doesn't require all of the crap we put ourselves through due to unchecked assumptions.
Dependent origination (Skt: pratityasamutpada, Pali: paticca-samuppada) is also known as conditioned co-arising and several other terms. Buddhism teaches that everything that exists is conditioned—dependent on something else. This applies to thoughts as well as objects, to the individual as well as the entire universe. Nothing exists independently. Everything is conditioned.
This concept is illustrated in the Buddhist teachings of the chain of dependent origination, which describes the factors that perpetuate the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The twelve links in the chain are sequential, each factor causing the following one: Because of this, that arises. When this ceases, that also ceases.
The links form a never-ending cycle that binds us to suffering, and the goal of Buddhist practice is to escape from this vicious cycle. Though there is more than one version of the sequence of links, they commonly run this way:
- Ignorance
- Mental formations
- Consciousness
- Name and form
- The senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, and mind
- Contact
- Feeling
- Craving
- Clinging
- Becoming
- Birth
- Aging and death
One thing I got wrong about this for a long long time was that this chain isn't linear and it's not (necessarily always) local.
Many people will argue that it's either:
- a cosmological system (which largely contradicts the intentions of Buddhism, where most cosmological questions are waved away as being irrelevant to the goal of eliminating suffering)
- an immedate series of one-after-the-other events describing the overall process of mind (which doesn't hold up to basic observational scrutiny).
In reality it's more of a graph of influencing factors that depend on each other. Tuning one's handling of each factor leads to the reduction of suffering in the whole system.
In reality it's more of a graph of influencing factors that depend on each other. Tuning one's handling of each factor leads to the reduction of suffering in the whole system.
Thich Nhat Hahn also wrote a lot about interdependence in an accessible way (I read a lot of his books when I was 18 or 19).
Indra's net is a vast, cosmic lattice that contains precious jewels wherever the threads cross. There are millions of jewels strung together to make the net, and each jewel has many facets. When you look at any facet of any jewels, you can see all the other jewels reflected in it. In the world of the Avatamsaka, in Indra's net, the one is present in the all, and the all in the one. This wonderful image was used in Buddhism to illustrate the principle of interdepedence and interpenetration.
The thing that I came to understand after experiencing what I did (I won't call it jhana because I haven't yet found a teacher to ask and I don't want to misspeak) is that our behavior is fundamentally connected to our internal state and emotional needs. These can be as deeply rooted as traumatic experiences or even mild preferences we have. The experience that I had almost feels like an internal sense of nourishment for these needs.
It starts as joy and happiness and settles into this sense of stable and calm contentment that isn't dependent on anything in the "external". You realize and deeply understand that you don't "need" anything to be content. Thoughts just fade in and out and eventually disappear.
After spending some time there I also realized how much effort the mind spends protecting the "model of the world" it's built up over time and how much stress it gets put under when something challenges it. It's hard to describe this in terms of the senses but you can almost "see" the struggle because it contrasts so much to this other state of pure calm and contentment that you can now access.
And because you can now access it (through staying on the path) it becomes a sort of refuge and eventually feels like source of strength.
And through having that I started asking myself why not just choose to be compassionate and kind? Why let the mind stress itself out over truly meaningless things when we now know how to calm it down and be content? Why protect the model of the world we've built up when it is so obviously limiting the depth of life that we can access and share?
Not that any of this is easy, and its definitely a journey but it's one worth going down.
I cannot. It's easier to imagine the sensations of being with the person than it is to visualize the person themselves.
I can't visualize the faces of any of my exes but I can vividly "feel" the memory how we felt being next to each other, sometimes if I focus this starts to include smells and sounds as well but no visuals.
Often I will decompose the problem into smaller subproblems and feed those to cursor one by one slowly building up the solution. That works for big tickets.
For me the time saving and force multiplier isn't necessarily in the problem solving, I can do that faster and better in most cases, but the raw act of writing code? It does that way faster than me.