andix

Okay, just because aviation is now also developing in the wrong direction (maybe), all the things they did right in the past are suddenly pointless? I suggest to learn from the things they did right, not the things they did wrong.

Isn't that the same thing as "not making mistakes"? If you can reduce the blast radius and didn't, wasn't that a major mistake in the first place?

You're right, there is no mandate for learning and doing better in SW engineering. Many companies just don't care, also kind of fine. This doesn't mean that everyone doesn't care and nobody wants to improve.

Aviation is working with the same constraints. Development of new systems is very slow, that's true. But day-to-day operation is extremely fast paced, and still impressively safe. They are able to change an engine of an aircraft within hours, with a very high probability of not making any relevant mistakes in the process.

It's more about managing mistakes. Pilots and other people in aviation still make a lot of mistakes all the time. But aviation figured out how to deal with that fact. Design procedures in a way, that mistakes self-correct most of the time. Add sanity checks exactly where they matter, and many other strategies.

Not losing production data and not getting breached is also something we try to make zero mistakes at.

It is a good industry to learn from. I'm not suggesting SW should become exactly like aviation.

> "Just as the FAA mandates manual flying time even when the autopilot is perfectly capable, SRE teams can designate certain incidents, even the ones the AI could handle, as human-practice opportunities"

This is a great example. Aviation is a perfect industry to learn from, they figured out a lot of things about how to keep humans from making mistakes. While complexity increases and automation takes away more and more tasks.

Those devices run in a private network and usually don't have any internet connectivity at all. If they do access the internet, it's usually limited to a few hosts that can easily be routed over some compatibility layer or a proxy.

The problem is real. In IP discovery GUA is prioritized over ULA. And if the GUA goes away or changes regularly it leads to connectivity issues.

ULA work well in combination with DNS though.

It only failed to fully replace IPv4. But it runs perfectly fine along IPv4 and is very much alive. It replaced IPv4 where it was needed and didn't where it doesn't matter yet.

Email didn't replace letters on paper. But I wouldn't say email failed completely.

I know. The full product's name seems to be "Claude Duet", which would make everything much clearer and easier to google it.

I could deduct some of that from this sentence, sure.

But I wrote this comment because the article was frustrating for me to read. One single sentence would've made it much less confusing:

  Look, I really didn’t want to like **Claude** Duet, **Anthropic's new personal AI assistant**. I don’t want to be an Anthropic fanboy and ...

I'm also known to flag this kind of shortcoming in all technical documentation I review, and it annoys a lot of people that I do. I've put my judgement to the test already a few times in team meetings when someone objected this specific remark. Many times I could prove that there are always a few people in the room that would've benefited a lot from such a simple clarification. They just didn't speak up or ask, because they thought they were the only ones that didn't know a specific term.

My intention is also not to be rude, just creating some awareness for this issue.

> For context: I deployed IPv6 in my networks in 2006. I have war stories.

Early IPv6 was a mess. It took a surprising amount of time for IPv6 to become mature and usable.