Lying. It is called lying, deceit, or bearing false witness.
In my house I do not permit "yeah", or "okay". It is "yes" and anything else is interpreted as a 'no'.
Once you press someone to speak a "yes" as a solid commitment, for example to an understanding of an instruction. If this puts the person on the defensive then you are dealing with someone who is not interested in being held accountable.
This isn't fair, because it's misunderstanding the problem. It's not that they're lying, it's that, in their culture, the meaning of yes is something different, meaning "I hear you" rather than "I understand you". If they're not strong with english they might not have a grasp of this, so (in the case of Mandarin as primary language) you have to usually think of it as an empty "uh huh" type filler word, not a word with actual meaning.
The real problem I have is the "saving face" concept prevents them admitting they don't understand something. This is where the "high context" part comes in. You can't listen to what they say directly, you have to go off how they say it, and other context clues. This is what I have the biggest problem with. The only way to know if they actually understand something is test their understanding, like have them repeat/explain it back to you. From a low context/western perspective, this results in low verbal trust (because it technically is). I've wasted so many hours on taking something said at face value, that I just default to verifying everything that's said, and trying to be patient when I find out the truth. But, I am getting much better at reading the cues, so can usually spot when the (from my western/low context perspective) bullshit when it starts.
There are old stereotypes around this clash of meaning/culture, but it really is just that. If you're from their culture, and speak their language, there's no "bullshitting" or "lying". From what I've been told, it's incredibly clear when someone is saving face, and it's very clear what the response should be, to "help" them save face. Westerners are, literally, just blind to it all. It's an incompatible mindset and language/expression that requires a robust translation layer that needs to exist in one of the parties. I seem to be mostly incapable of high context communication, even in english, so I'm just as "at fault" in the two party role of communication.
I live in a different world than most where the expectation is we speak the truth, stand behind our word, and in the event of failure we maintain the relationship after resolving the conflict.
As for saving face, I provide opportunities to walk back, restate, or take back something that was said. People get angry, misspeak, or respond with fear and that is understandable.
I get what you're saying, but you're ignoring intent here. They're, literally, using the wrong word, without meaning to. In their language they have multiple "yes" that mean very different things, but they incorrectly use our single "yes" for all of them which, as you're very correct to point out, has a very specific and STRONG meaning. This is a conceptual mapping mistake, not an intent.
They're trying, and slightly failing, to speak a language they took time to learn, but is still unfamiliar to them, my dude. The alternative is that you/I should learn mandarin. I applaud their efforts that allow me to be lazy, even if it means I have to understand some shortfalls in the communication.
If you learn a language, but accidentally use the wrong word in conversation, because maybe nobody has corrected you before, does that make you a liar? Of course not. That's what's going on here.
I was ignoring the language translation with excessive simplification while speaking of a framework.
To your specific point: no, grace abounds for those who remain in conversation and continue to repair the situation.
As for having a single 'yes', we backwater Americans have multiple versions including yeah, okay, yup, ya, yessssss, hell yes, yuppers, uh huh, right, right-o, got it, absolutely, and I am sure a dozen more.
I am speaking of intent. The intent, regardless of the language used, commnunicate in a way that both parties have no assumptions and if there is a miscommunication on anyone's part, both parties work to resolve it without blame. And I thank you for your reply, my dude, which I take as a verbal suffix of casual frustration. English is not my first language mind you.
My experience has been that if the skill is broken down into a function, possibly paired with a validator in another stage, you're at 99.9% deterministic.
I have not yet tested this at scale but give me six months.
Someone recently had AI create a trading bot and it returns 131% on every transaction over a 30 day period - do you really think they care about code quality or ability to verify the math?
I guarantee you that the "moat" is very much intact for the SaaS we are building (more developer / gaming tool but then again so is this) because it requires specialized skills, synthesis and most importantly AI would have no idea how to build it without very specific prompting from our architect
CRUD wrappers never had a moat. Even the most basic viable SaaS that wasnt a micro SaaS had some secret sauce or differentiation. And AI doesnt help you get that unless you already know what it is.
Not to mention network effects. Users are a moat and if you can sell and grow fast enough and create a community, no amount of "there's a clone" can beat it. Never underestimate the power of brand recognition.
the moat is always going to exist between the haves and have nots. AI just raises the bar for the standard of quality. you are not going to vibe code a new OS in a weekend - or else everyone else and their mamas could, too, in which case, you wouldn't be special
Most SaaS pre-AI had an open source alternative. Most people didn't use them not because the open source alternative lack some features, it was because mainteinance was hard. It's way easier to pay a small monthly fee and forget about it.
Perhaps you could, but you probably always could've built a clone of any SaaS app you wanted, it's just become faster.
I'm reminded of the infamous Dropbox Hacker News comment[1]. If you're looking at stuff like this thinking "what's the point? I could just make that myself" then you're not the target audience in the same sort of way Ikea isn't trying to sell stuff to carpenters.
This is true even when the barrier to entry in making these sorts of systems has gotten way lower.
For every dropbox that managed to build a business out of a feature, there are probably >1000 that didn't. But I guess this meme is a good way to kill off bad businesspeople.
I could spend $1,000s on tokens asking an agent to build (some semblance of) Sentry, or New Relic, but why would I bother? I have real work to do in the near-term, and I'm happy to pay for services that help me do it.
All the hard work is always chasing down edge cases, scaling, operational issues and other things that don't show up the user-exposed features. And talking about features, the innovation in coming up with them, or iterating on making them work with real customer experience is a ton of value, even if copying the ideas that work later is much easier - which is why I generally prefer betting on an innovator with just of enough traction to show they can stick with it. The best category leaders both innovate and steal/copy/buy all the innovation they aren't producing in house to maintain their lead.
It's a bit vague, but the idea is right. If your SaaS is built with AI, then any customer you have can also build it with AI, and whatever they build is going to be better suited to their needs and will run cheaper because they aren't paying your margin. AI skews the build vs buy curve massively, because it makes building so much easier
You don't tell agents to build this stuff from the ground up. Someone builds an open source tool, and you get your agents to deploy and customize it. The plumbing and groundwork is already laid, you're just detailing.
I was writing this comment and then asked AI model to find me a blog post and it looks like Cloudflare does support outbound now (I am seeing a send mail option)
https://blog.cloudflare.com/email-service/ So yes it supports both and this feature was recently added (september 2025) & its still in private beta or something similar but yes now its possible.
But I have still written parts of the comments where I had assumed that you were right and I am still gonna let it be to show what my thinking process was I guess. Not that it matters now but I am frugal in finding alternatives sooo yeah :> lol (currently the cf private beta option's the best imo)
Yea I am a little bit confused as well being honest.
That being said, I feel as if even if Cloudflare might not be the best approach, one can try out purelymail (https://purelymail.com/) as well.
I feel as if Amazon SES might be the best option for it (or any EU alternative, I remember seeing an UK service with the same competitive pricing of Amazon SES)
But that being said, I am unable to understand the exact use of E-mail & what's the real idea to suggest the best infrastructure to use.
I mean technically, can something like cloudflare workers for inbox and amazon ses for outbound work if cloudflare email product is only for receving
That being said all of this is basing on the fact that what you thought is right
Cloudflare/SES works if you want raw email sending and receiving. If you want threading, parsing, storage, retrieval, logic, filtering, labeling, search -- you'll need to build it out yourself.
We're devs ourselves so ik the first thought is usually "how hard can it be?" in our validation, we thought it was hard enough to build a startup around :) these things are easier said than done, and no one in 2026 should be stitching together email workflows. especially not agents
honestly, I have been thinking about it. But I feel like it would be a fun little side project if people actually try it out. (maybe you mention that you can build it)
So let's see how many people actually build it. Let's make it the new browser test instead and launch many open source solutions instead and see what's the best perhaps.
reply