samhclark

IMO, one way to retain the power user crowd is to do the hard parts that they might have skipped themselves. For a couple examples:

- after selecting your observability apps, every _other_ app could automatically configure centralized logging, its own dashboard of metrics, etc

- the host OS could ask the user simply for the backup destination (S3 url creds, attached local disk, SMB share, etc) and every app is again automatically configured with backups

- the host could have a control panel to roll back apps between versions (maybe it's FS snapshots or something)

- everyone can use containers, but if the project went through the extra effort to make each app its own VM instead, that could be worth something

- if there was a companion Android/iOS app for management and (importantly) alerting?

---

That doesn't really solve the monetization issue you described, but I do think you can still get powerusers on board if you handle even harder problems than they'd want to take on themselves. Or...harder problems than they'd risk taking on themselves if their family uses what's being hosted, for example. Less tolerance for downtime

Edit: formatting

This is neat! I've been building something very similar for personal use. I may lift a little bit of the app manifest part.

I'm a little surprised that there's just one backup app, instead of each app coming with its own backup sidecar. To backup Immich, for instance, requires coordinating between its four different programs. I guess I'll read more about how that backup app works too ha

Did qwen actually release those robotsuite weights? I can't seem to find them anywhere.

Funny timing! I just finished migrating my NAS containers all to be rootless last weekend.

"Migrating" because secrets management was a bit of a pain. I ended up with pretty close to the same design as this article though. (I put an extra layer of complexity in mine, we'll see if I regret it)

Along with the other folks in this thread, I don't think we can stop at rootless in 2026. But I'm optimistic that dropping in libkrun as the runtime will be an easy next step, given its integration with podman (--runtime=krun).

If the author tackles that next, I'd be interested in reading about it

Makes sense, thanks for that context. I knew that linux kernel dev happens over email, but didn't piece that together with commit signing.

> I wouldn't personally want to be held accountable for a commit I'd never so much as read, so I would never sign (even locally) a commit until I'd looked at it.

I think that's reasonable. I'd say that if I push the commit, then I should be accountable for it whether I read it or not (and no one is going to see it unless I push it).

Yeah. The agent can create commits and those commits are signed (`commit.gpgsign true`).

I'm treating it like...you can hold me accountable for that commit and the commit came from my computer. That feels like the right spirit of things.

How do you do commit signing? I've never worked anywhere it was common, nor worked on a team where anyone else signed commits. I don't know how it's really used in the wild, so to speak.

I think that's why I like prerelease (and sealed, generally) the most of any format. For day 1 prerelease, a lot of the players are reading the cards for the first time. For sealed later on, even if you know the meta for that set, it's more about playing the best deck with the cards you've got. Knowing the meta doesn't change your pool. (As opposed to draft, where if you don't know the meta you might inadvertently pass excellent cards and miss signposts other players will catch)

Agreed with everyone else. Scrcpy is amazing and is so easy to use.

I think we agree? I can't tell if you meant this as additional support for what I wrote or as a rebuttal.

Regardless, yeah, I don't think that's wrong or misleading. I only meant to say that because there are exceptions now, there might also be more exceptions in the future. Which, to me, means it's important to evaluate each new local DC individually.

And your point about setting my priors is exactly what I'm saying, too.

Agreed.

I think my takeaway from the water usage deep dive was about the scale of the numbers and a better intuition about water usage, but also that you really need to consider each data center uniquely. He'll say in broad strokes that data centers are fine, and then mention the few exceptions (in the infrasound article, that's the xAI DC). That's fine for the moment when he wrote the article, but if I'm evaluating a proposed data center in my local area, I don't know what bucket it falls in. Is it the exception or the norm? Still, because I read that deep dive, I feel better equipped to make that evaluation.

In my opinion, this was a great debunking of Benn Jordan's infrasound videos.

When I first saw his videos, they didn't quite sit right with me. I was reminded of the arguments people made about WiFi and 5G. But I couldn't put my finger on the flaws in the logic, or the specifics of it. I also didn't feel like I had the time to dig in and research all his claims myself, so I just kinda left them feeling skeptical.

Reading this article felt great. Admittedly, it confirmed my biases so I tried spot checking it here and there. What little I did check seemed right and I trust Andy Masley's previous reporting.

I only have two criticisms of the article. First, the few cheap digs he took at Jordan (e.g. the CO2 emissions from his long drive) which I agree with but are unrelated to the overall argument. Second, some of the paragraphs had a strong "written by AI" tone. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but that made me trust those specific paragraphs slightly less.

This is a very cool project and I'm happy to see it getting traction here. I stumbled upon it when I was looking to build something similar and surveying the state of the art...then I realized you built _exactly_ what I wanted!

Thank you, great work!