taberiand

Hopefully with the amount of visibility LLMs are bringing to the situation, security will finally be considered a first-class feature

Anytime I get worried about where AI might be headed, I think about how Climate Change is now on its way like an out of control freight train headed straight for us, and I worry about AI a little less. I doubt it's going to do anything to us that we're not already doing to ourselves

Seems to me it's a reasonable position that runs face first into the irrational market.

Like they're digging a gigantic hole and Ed's up the top saying if you keep digging the hole will collapse (+ a whole lot of unnecessary swearing), and then a bunch of people jump into the hole to brace it and say "nuh uh, see we can keep digging" but really it's just postponing the inevitable and increasing the number of people who will be destroyed when it all crashes down

Most of us just shovel CRUD, we really should be honest with ourselves.

I remember reading an article years ago about how a company was running rings around its competition because they were releasing features faster and more effectively, due to their choice to use Lisp as their language. Of course a competitor who tried to pivot to Lisp was unlikely to have the same results - the specific language choice was not nearly as important as the fact that the founders were already experts in Lisp.

The point being, Kubernetes is easily the right choice for a start-up if you have a Kubernetes expert on the team (and the rest of the team is willing to put the time in learning the system and not just cargo-culting around it)

That's my belief as well: modular architecture and separation of concerns is orthogonal to monolith <-> microservice infrastructure axis.

And Service Oriented Architecture is the nice middle ground of that infrastructure axis

Then you mow side to side

The models are good enough these days that I see it like managing a team of juniors. The LLMs need guidance and oversight, and about the same amount of time I'd spend reviewing code from a junior I spend on the LLM output. I think generally it's best practice to work in a way that "commit and hope it works (because it passes all the CI/CD automated testing and verification, and it's a change gated behind feature flags and has an identified and minimal blast radius, etc)" is possible

You could probably get Claude to build the plugin for you

We used fast.com to speed test our new office internet connection and the next day got an irate email from corporate (who had argued we didn't need the new connection) about "watching Netflix all day". I imagine some C-level thought they had a real gotcha! moment until I showed them the site.

Well sure - that's essentially the same as wrapping the whole workflow in a version check for each version; copy-paste the whole lot and change the code wherever. It's still surfacing an issue that would otherwise be less visible on a system that did allow a worker on a new version to pull an old half-completed workflow

> Depending on how your code is written, modifying code baked into workflows becomes complex, as anything that modifies the history event ordering breaks determinism in already-deployed workers.

I see this as Temporal surfacing inherent complexity of the domain in a way that forces the developer to consider it, rather than introducing extra complexity.

If it didn't make workflow determinism a strict requirement, the requirement would still exist - it would just hurt much worse in production when it's broken.

See also: Rust borrowing

Discrimination of sexual orientation, for example, depending on how it's asked. Just one of those areas best left alone in an interview