Building multi-player vibe coding at @Nullshot_ai. Previously @earnalliance, @kintohub, Junglee Games. Loves building games, dev tools, agents, and culture.
Most founders pivot too early.
Got a rule: every new idea goes in the back pocket for three months before I do anything with it. Most of them die on their own. The ones that survive are usually worth chasing.
Been realising how important closed loops are. Set the AI up properly, it runs, it finishes, it reports back. Done.
When the loop isn't closed, you're babysitting. Which is just doing the work yourself with extra steps.
Working towards more loops that actually close.
My theory would be that they have a new marketing team / effort (referrals, come back automations, etc). This is all new stuff.
Additionally, having folks LEARN about composer 2.5 is important as a lot of folks are blindly using other models that aren't plugged into updates.
Finally: Data - more data on composer
Finally Finally: Margins. Why not push for higher revenue?
Someone at the @cursor_ai meetup last week asked how I trust AI-generated code I haven't read line by line.
Honest answer: you don't trust the code. You trust the loop. Different models reviewing each other catches more than any single pass would.
Hiring is the most undervalued thing a founder does. Everything else comes from it.
A lot of founders treat hiring like an interruption, something to get through so they can get back to the real work. The real work being the product, the customers, the fundraising. Hiring is the thing in between.
I think it's the other way around. The product is only as good as the team building it. The customers are only as happy as the product. The money is only as good as everything underneath it. The team is the thing that makes the rest of it work.
The thing I keep coming back to is how much you can tell from the first conversation. Whatever you notice in someone the first time you meet them is usually who they are. The things you tell yourself you'll fix don't usually get fixed. They just get louder.
The other one: people are best at interviewing when they're trying to get the job. Six weeks in is when you actually find out who someone is. By then you've already made the bet, and undoing it is way more expensive than slowing the call down would have been.
A better process doesn't really solve this. More questions, more take-homes, more references. What actually helps is being honest with yourself about the gut feeling you had after the first conversation, and not talking yourself out of it because the CV looks good or you need the role filled.
Excitement is a useful signal. Talking yourself into someone is usually a sign you've already got your answer.
Everyone in AI is saying prompting is the main blocker now. Models are good enough, the limit is humans. I don't think that's right.
Anyone can build. The skill ceiling has come way down. What's actually blocking people is the cost ceiling. The price war is squeezing rate limits, tiers keep shifting under us, everyone's chasing GPUs, Codex is now ahead of Claude Code on limits...
We went from "is this possible" to "is this affordable" really fast.
Speaking at a @cursor_ai meet-up tomorrow. First time.
Been using Cursor for 15 months. Strange to be the one doing the talking now.
The talk is about multitasking in Cursor, how to run multiple things at once without losing the thread. Then 15 minutes to build as many features as I can, live, before the timer goes.
One thing I'm curious about. The way you use a tool when nobody's watching is different from the way you use it in front of a room. The shortcuts you skip, the prompts you half-write, the moments you sit and think, all of it shows up in a live demo.
Going to find out what my actual workflow looks like. Recap to follow.
Most of my week is split between building and talking to people. Both matter. But the talking is where the shifts happen.
Had one of those last week. A mentor I trust, the kind of person who's been through this a few times and sees the shape of it before I do. Lost sleep over it after.
The conversation was about clarity. How well the team actually knows what to prioritize, how confident I am that we're spending time on the things that move the business, how much of that is real vs how much I'm assuming.
Spent the weekend rebuilding how we're running priorities this week. New tooling, new rhythm, clearer signal on what each person's working on and why. By Sunday night I was grateful the conversation happened, even though it cost me a Saturday.
The thing nobody tells you about running a company is that the dashboard never tells you the real story. It tells you what's happening. People tell you why. And until you understand the why, you can't actually make a decision worth making.
That conversation gave me the why. The weekend gave me the how. Better Monday because of both.