dust-jacket

I ditched wireguard for tailscale for the ease of managing it. I'd much rather run my own independently but CBA with the config editing hassle.

Just that if someone asks you if you were reading this morning, you should probably say "no" if you were listening to a podcast. It's not a value judgement, just a category.

Apologies that I didn't notice you weren't CommonGuy, who said "improving them in the future is not really their style". Consider my reply aimed at them. The two of you seem to be saying something quite different. I don't think I necessarily disagree with you

Abandoning something, and not making the changes you want to see are entirely different things.

e.g. when Crowdstrike takes down Windows across the worlds or AWS east coast falls over everybody hurts. At that point the story is easy, you point at the broken thing, mumble something about improving resilience, and everyone just moves on.

Roll your own system and have it taken down / breached specifically? There's noone to point at. It's hard to make the narrative anything except it being your fault.

AWS can make data export free, and no-one's going to shout at them that it's not free because it cost money to store the data there in the first place.

Bunny offers a number of services to paying customers. One of the services, that would previously have incurred a cost, now does not. It is free.

> A verification regime does not need your approval — it needs your participation

Ugh

Just checked and the config file for my daily use terminal setup is 3 lines long. 3! That means I know I can chuck it on any system, any clean re-install, and it'll be Fine. That counts for a lot when you've grown tired of endless config tweaking.

Setting out to do something commercial (and succeeding), is different from setting out to do something firmly non-commercial and then commercialising it. The second one will almost always involve compromise that was never intended, which often undermines the original, non-commercial version.

I er... think you might be a workaholic.

But I'm glad for you that your current setup is helping :)

I've worked with great prolific devs. They're often very humble, happy to explain their work, and recognise that simply adding to a pile of queued PRs isn't likely to achieve very much. They are part of a team. These are good people.

I've worked with people "who consider themselves prolific humans" - they're far less humble, far more likely to be flexing or showing off. I have less time for them.

I've worked with people who consider themselves 'prolific humans'. Someone always has to tidy upp later, and its never them

Year before the MSFT takeover. No idea about their actual financials but they were definitely shedding headcount pre 2020, including kicking people for trying to unionise.

I get that this isn't at all where we are any more. And y'know, everyone's gonna use terms to mean whatever they want. I'm fine with that. I guess I just think its pointless if "social media" means "anything online where people can write messages"

Is the linux kernel mailing list social media? was usenet?

But we're a long way from that now.

But how do you assess this? Maybe we should get them to write a document that details what they've done, and then invite them to a conversation to discuss it.

Oh wait...

The best thing I learned about SQL is that it can do an awful lot of clever stuff but that the vast majority of the time you really don't need it. Learn the basics. Shrug the rest off.

does seem like more things will have to go this way though

Just giving them AI back is pointless. It means _your_ role is pointless.

Without a large audience, spending money on porting to AVP is either money down the drain or a bet on a large audience coming along soon.

Hard not to think that's a major part of it. IME you make loads more corrections in languages you're more opinionated about (and opinionated usually follows more experience & confidence).

I correct AI Python all the time. When it cranks out TypeScript I just check it works.

We get how it works. It's just irritating.

The friction they should have probably had here is: did this employee need access to 3,800 internal repos?

I'm with the poster above in believing restricting what you can install makes a lot of things more difficult, but if you're going to take the risk you should be limiting the blast radius.

The difference is where once they scraped, wrote a summary and invited users to go to the site, now they just provide the summary.

It's just not the distinction some people believe it to be.