A guy logged into Monti on a Mac using Firefox and immediately hit three bugs.
My immediate instinct was to panic, apologize, and start defending the codebase.
I built this entire thing myself, and seeing someone else click around made every shortcut I took feel incredibly exposed.
Instead of hiding, I asked him to keep going and screen-share while it broke.
The bugs were real, bdw. A state-management issue froze the decision input field, and a CSS layout glitch buried the primary action button on smaller screens.
It was embarrassing to watch, for sure.

But as I watched him struggle through it, a weird realization hit me.
He wasn't quitting.
He was actually trying to force the app to work because he wanted to log a decision he had just made before he forgot the context.
Silence from zero users is terrifying.
Bugs from a live user mean someone actually cares enough about the problem to try and navigate your broken software.
Anyway, I fixed the code that night, but the real takeaway wasn't the technical fix. It was realizing that bad code with a real user is infinitely better than clean code that nobody touches.
How did you handle the absolute panic of your first live user bug?
Interesting signal.
The thing I'd be careful with is that a user pushing through bugs proves something, but not necessarily the thing most founders assume.
The expensive mistake is usually not fixing the bugs. It's drawing the wrong product conclusion from the first person determined enough to work around them.
I wouldn't make that call casually in a thread because it tends to shape what gets built next.
True. It should not be a binary approach but rather a combination of different factors looked into holistically.