Justin Lee

@amraniyasser Such a timely question! My rule of thumb: if a piece of feedback solves a real pain but complicates the core workflow, I table it. If it solves the pain and simplifies the experience, I build it. The hardest ones are features that users ask for loudly but would actually hurt retention if built — because they're solving a symptom, not the root problem. Have you found a way to...

For now at least, AI is still most useful when given precise direction. Left to make decisions on its own, the mistakes come pretty quickly. So the real question isn't whether AI can replace humans — it's whether humans are willing to stay in the loop. The people who get the most out of AI are the ones who stay curious and keep questioning the output, not the ones who just accept whatever it...

How about asking the question: "Would a free user still recommend this to a friend?" If yes, the free tier is doing its job. If no, that means either locked too much behind the paywall or built the wrong thing entirely.

I wonder if the answer is “curated vulnerability” — not just sharing wins, but also sharing specific bugs, failed UI decisions, and what didn’t work in testing. That seems like a better way to earn real feedback instead of polite applause.

Incredible insights, Imed! As a solo founder building my MVP with Google AI Studio, the part about AI turning 'temporary scaffolds into foundations' hits painfully close to home. I'm trying to find PMF before hitting that 18-month wall. I've heard the advice to 'treat AI as a junior dev, not an architect' and to enforce strict static analysis (like SonarQube). But from your study of 100...