It'd be $8.52 in 2015 dollars, but certainly they are the ones who mentioned the $12 amount not you, so I'll put that aside.
Far more importantly, you would not get billed for 2 minutes of work for this if you paid a developer to fix it. At best, half hour increments for the fix. But more likely, for the full hour. Also, in this comparison, the consultant is on call every day, morning, afternoon, evening, for whatever you wanted and will jump on the job immediately.
...and won't mind if you change your mind. And again. And again. And again for as long as you care to iterate your design, experiment with a business user over your shoulder, etc. etc. etc. People routinely avoid throwing away work because they get emotionally attached to it, even if they get paid by the hour. LLMs just do as they are told, and thats worth a lot.
It doesn't have Claude Fable yet, so I went with GPT 5.5 Pro. And so I'd estimate it at 22 gallons of water used (different from consumed, of course). That's quite a lot! It amazes me how much the different use cases and models use dramatically different amounts of water. My takeaway from playing with that calculator has been the folks who talk about water usage are overstating the impact of chatbots, but not overstating when it comes to vibecoding.
The good thing is that competition should drive down how efficient these models are in the long run. This blog post makes me not want to run Fable because of the cost, and that incidentally also means selecting models that aren't as wasteful in terms of water and electricity.
I misread your comment at first and thought you were insulting Simon Willison, rather than calling Claude Fable a bad developer, and so I'm commenting here to clarify it in case others also misread it.
That first sentence threw me off.
Anyway, I'm glad he spent the $12 because this blog post was highly informative.
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way. Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
HN Guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...] Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative. [...] Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
I haven't had the chance to touch one yet. But the reviews seem to suggest the hardware doesn't "feel" cheap in the way a lot of low priced computers can.
I can't vouch on whether it's true, but that's the brand question here in my opinion. If the hinge was crappy and it felt like it was going to break any second and the keyboard was a return to the butterfly and it was slow and so on, because they wanted to make it cheap, then yeah I think that'd hurt their brand overall.
If you were to compare it to a painting or to the Grand Canyon or to the Northern Lights or like an act of kindness or a parent's love for their child or something, then I guess fine, not beautiful.
But for an open source project it's very nice!
(Note: none of the marketing materials for the website chose that word, at first glance. It seems to just be a descriptor given by the HN poster.)
I'm the maintainer of Paseo. This is correct, I do not use the word beautiful anywhere.
I personally do think it's beautiful (obviously), but I would not use that word in marketing materials, I'd rather people judge from seeing the screenshots or trying the product.
Far more importantly, you would not get billed for 2 minutes of work for this if you paid a developer to fix it. At best, half hour increments for the fix. But more likely, for the full hour. Also, in this comparison, the consultant is on call every day, morning, afternoon, evening, for whatever you wanted and will jump on the job immediately.
reply