CodesInChaos

I am rather receptive to the argument that SQL is a fractal of bad design. But complaining that SQL engines implement well known SQL semantics according to spec is silly.

Since the library claims to be postgres compatible, I wonder if its developers ran the existing postgres jepsen suite against it (possibly with some adjustments). Or why not.

Especially now, where you could probably just ask AI to adapt the existing suites to the cosnistency claims this database makes, and get something useful out of it. While certainly not as good as a professional test, I'd expect it to at least find some low hanging fruits before going for the expensive and public official Jepsen test.

Claude "team" plans are limited to 150 seats per company. So big companies have no choice.

Why do you use commas to separate multiple targets, instead of multiple arguments?

Claude is surprisingly bad at killing processes. Had several "Whoops, my process killer matched itself and died before its victims" notifications already.

Get the "One Tab" extension. It closes all tabs, but saves a list, so it gets over the psychological hurdle of losing the open tabs.

> I always found it weird that people flocked to github.

Same reason we ended up with git. Their predecessors were significantly worse, and then they had enough momentum to keep going.

Downtime aside, what do prefer about GitLab?

> one of the main performance tricks for CGI was to get processes to stay alive

How does that work? Exec(ve) without fork? That should still clean up the PHP state.

> zstd has high quality rust implementations

On the decompression side yes, on the compression side the first good zstd rust port was announced yesterday. Until then, brotli was better supported in Rust than zstd.

But I agree, decompression libraries should be (mostly) memory safe nowadays, since that side is both easier to implement and more likely to be vulnerable.

It's just as likely it would end up as an overengineered mess. And that's without considering backwards compatibility constraints, which are one of the biggest maintenance burdens.

So we now have evidence that AI absorbs the souls of dead people.

There is little difference between a tag and a branch in git. There is just the convention that tags reference the same commit forever, while branches move.

On github forks are part of the same physical repository. You could imagine that each logical repository is just a namespace for branches and tags, backed by the same physical repository.

I do consider the warning a bug if github, it should check both tags and branches for commits which are to be considered part of a logical repository.

I'm surprised by CGI. The vulnerability description talks about a second request being affected by corrupted state from an earlier request. But I thought CGI only processes one request per process?