eximius

The reasons against doing this is obvious. Is there any coherent description of why someone would think it is a good idea? And I don't mean, like, delusional reasons, but an actually rational argument for "here is where it might work out and we need to try and measure to find out".

Lot's of talk about how LLMs are bad at optimizing. And they are. They are still fundamentally semi-learned stochastic parrots. But LLMs are related to the Infinite Monkey Theorem - we've given monkeys typewriters, but pretrained the monkeys to be better than random.

They don't have to be good if they're cheap, directed, and sufficiently random to hit on something good within your budget.

Are LLMs better than our top mathematicians? No way! But they're able to spitball and falsify in parallel way faster. Eventually their directionally random output will hit something novel and interesting.

This is only a reasonable stance at the very surface level.

1. "You either work with what we use" - so whatever organization you represent isn't capable of evaluating and shifting to more secure technologies?

2. "it is mostly unacceptable for an enterprise product to have opinionated decisions about what authentication it works with" - you think companies that care about security should not care about integrating with flawed protocols?

A potential customer making bad choices does not obligate a business to make bad choices for their business.

I think the main thing I'm waiting for in the atproto space, for _most_ applications, is private data solutions. And the recent RFC on private data spaces (I forget the terminology) is a start, but has a ways to go.

* You're just describing arranging the test setup, which is independent of storage medium.

* Is your repository interface untyped?

* Depends on the fidelity of your fake, but generally I find FKs to be an antipattern these days.

* What are you checking primary keys FOR? Uniqueness is easy and I avoid more complex constraints and triggers.

* ... I'm beginning to suspect we have a difference in terminology. I'm not saying a mock. A typical DB fake would be array or hash table backed in memory. So an insert is "real" and an update or delete would be too.

* Well, sure, but I can get 95% fidelity for 1% of the resources.

I've yet to be convinced all of this effort is worth it, compared to the ease of using a repository pattern and just using a fake for tests.

And, like, I don't think we shouldn't be doing these efforts, I guess, as they may still pay technical advancement dividends down the road or help with cheaper, faster QA envs, all-in-one e2e envs, etc... but for the unit test and service test layers, those bottom several layers of your testing pyramid, fakes for your repository interfaces is so much easier and orders of magnitude cheaper.

While there is _some_ truth to what they are saying, it is an unnecessarily hostile and nihilistic take, intentionally eschewing nuance.

Often hot takes like this can serve a good purpose. I'm not sure that this does.

Alright, we're halfway through the Pantheon scene where David hacks the data center with the satellite phone.

Though, the phone moving with the vibration was always the more believable half. The ultrasonic pressing of the keyboard is mostly sound science but questionable from an engineering standpoint.

Hmm if a particle is a quantized packet of a field, then if multiple quantizations are possible in a field, then it's possible for more particles than fields?

Is that not kinda the point?

People reach for the things you mentioned wayyyyyy before they should.

Just because you want something queue shaped or search, doesn't mean you should reach for the big, specialized, expensive technology, when Postgres can already support it in your existing infrastructure up until some significant scale you often won't surpass.

Holy fuck, not everything in this life needs to be profit maximized.

1. This is kinda a dick move.

2. Regarding the title... you can definitely prompt them to be dumber, clearly. We know performance can be improved via prompts, from "baseline" performance. So this is a weird title.

If you ever suddenly get IPv6, it may become globally reputable without you realizing.

1) They reached out to me. 2) My answer was applicable and accurate, but insufficiently _unique_ for them.