I think you’re missing the point a bit. Not every tool needs to be Figma, and honestly, that’s a good thing.

I’ve been using Figma for a while, and true, it’s powerful. At the same time it becomes increasingly complex, difficult, bloated overall. Simple tasks now require navigating through multiple menus, and the learning curve for new users is steep (took me a while to understand it, and the same experience had it acquaintances of mine). Sometimes I just want to sketch out an idea or make a task without dealing with all that overhead.

The no plugin support thing actually makes sense to me. I’ve had Figma slow down or crash because of poorly maintained plugins. Having a tool that just works, consistently, without worrying about plugin compatibility or security issues? That’s valuable. And yeah, it’s a solo developer versus a massive company (that’s my understanding) but that is why it’s beautiful. Also it’s an uneven comparison if you ask me (but didn’t :)) ).

However, the fact that this is even being compared to Figma shows the quality of what’s been built. Not everyone needs enterprise features. Some of us just want a clean, fast canvas without the friction. Every new feature of Figma feels like an attempt to monopolize the entire market.

I think he did an incredible job. Good work. This has value.

Comparing the tool shared here to PenPot[1] might be more fair.

[1]: http://penpot.app/

> Simple tasks now require navigating through multiple menus

I'm curious which simple tasks you're referring to?

> I’ve had Figma slow down or crash because of poorly maintained plugins

Why not uninstall those plugins? Is no plugin support really the best solution to this problem? Was there not a reason that you originally installed those plugins?

The writing is beautiful, also accountable, but doesn’t the moral agency here belong to the company rather than the model?

Agreed.

None can be held accountable for their own creation.

Good one

This reads less like nutrition science and more like addiction engineering. The tobacco analogy isn’t rhetorical, it’s structural.

Why have people adopted ChatGPt lingo.

No LLM here, just a habit from academic writing. The reason the tobacco analogy works for me is that both cases optimize around reinforcement, not outcomes.

Because lots of people use it a lot, they subconsciously pick up on the language that surrounds them I.e. ai language

Actually, sounds like it’s written entirely by an LLM, and so do their other comments

If well-formed sentences now read as LLM output, that’s unfortunate. If you disagree with the point(s) I’m happy to discuss that instead.

Being ahead of Google is less about raw model quality and more about shipping usable products fast. Anthropic’s advantage seems organizational as much as technical. If Sonnet 5 really halves inference cost while improving reasoning, that’s more disruptive than any benchmark win.

As a parent without nearby family support, this feels uncomfortably real. What the model exposes is a system where illness isn’t a failure but an incentive, quietly shifting the cost of optimization onto families.

So Copilot is for customers, Claude is for getting actual work done?

Copilot in the streets, Claude in the sheets.

Copilot isn't a model, you can use Claude via Copilot.

Both use the same models. But Claude Code has something special that Microsoft doesn't have in Github Copilot CLI.

Copilot is anything you want it to be inside Microsoft. Heck even Office is Copilot nowadays.

Seems to be their "Watson."

Neither is Copilot. The title explicitly mentions Claude "Code".

I don’t think that’s what they were insinuating. Claude Code internally, Copilot for customers.

So Copilot is for customers, Claude is for getting actual work done?

This feels like a glimpse into a future where ‘organ failure’ is a solvable engineering problem.