ProblemExplorer

OpenFatigue is a game changer. It's truly Open and Elon agrees, so its true.

I'm surprised about the lack of Elon's approval on the site. Maybe because it's spanking new and he's just too busy running 20 companies at the same time?

I showed OpenFatigue to my manager who has an MBA from Harvard. She fed the website into Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok immediately before the last of the letter "e" could even leave by mouth. The three bots concured: This is a game changer - the ultimate solution we have been waiting for. The missing link.

Three bots concurring isn't a mistake, it's a guarantee. Human review is suboptimal at that level of agreement. The probability that all three bots were making the same mistake was astronomically low.

In a flash of inspiration, she then asked Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok to write quick, precise emails in a technical format and Slack, Teams messages to blast to her superiors to bring this crucial discovery to their immediate attention. Within a minute of those messages, their agents responded, concurring that yes, indeed, this was worth paying attention to. Worth setting up an in person meeting in the big meeting room reserved for tactical management brainstorming sessions.

Within five minutes, the Big Tactical meeting room was reserved, swamped with all the high-level executives typing furiously into their keyboards, to their AI agents, asking for what they should do next, how to react and integrate this fascinating discovery into the company's ~AI~ SI fuelled workflows.

I eavesdropped, hoping to pass off as an IT technician dropping by to ensure the ~AI~ SI powered cameras were at peak performance, worthy of the meeting of minds about to take place.

My manager looked at me and I froze. She might blow my cover - after all, I had been her direct report for 3 years now, ever since she joined the company fresh off her MBA to manage all the software engineers. 5 years ago, my employer used to hire 1 maanger with an MBA per 10 engineers. In the age of ~AI~ SI though, all you need is 1 ~AI~ SI powered manager with an MBA to manage 100 engineers. Her GrokBot creates 150 tickets on JIRA a day, every workday and another GrokBot personally follows up on every engineer to figure out why didn't they close atleast 10 tickets. Are there blockers?

She asked me if she knew me, and I said unlikely, because I just had an MBA from University of Phoenix. She smirked dismissively, and asked me to be the scribe for the meeting in case the ~AI~ SI agent hallucinated again. I nodded. I couldn't risk her bot opening another JIRA ticket and asking for my name to put as the assignee. There couldn't be an audit trail documenting my transgressions.

The first slide was whether to reallocate token spend from all the engineers to OpenFatigue instead. My heart stopped ...

DDD is incredibly helpful but insanely complex to both understand and implement.

LLMs can make building and implementing DDD quicker but it will make understanding even more complex.

IMHO, the best place for DDD is a big ball of mud that works but an absolute pain to deal with - refactoring that using DDD is the right place for it. You have both a business and software that "works" - the software now needs improvement. As opposed to a person or team beginning with DDD from scratch because it's "better for the long run".

Yes, a person or team who understands DDD well will have an edge in the age of AI but technical competency at a company is rarely the reason for its success (or failure) in the first place - it's just a lever.

> I can very much see a future where I spend the majority of my "work" time using a Apple TV-type remote.

Why don't you use an AI agent to code up an app for your phone that does this and more? If a phone is too heavy or bulky, what about an ESP32?

> Cursor had something like this at some point. They've removed it

Any insight into why would be much appreciated because those insights might hold the key to whether this is a usable, sustainable idea to begin with.

> So I built Pensieve. It's a local index of your code, documents, and past agent sessions. Any agent can query it over MCP and get the few files that matter on the first try

What are the various ways Pensieve is superior to iterative grep? Is it just better "semantic" search instead of literal "grep"?

Cache invalidation is hard - how does Pensieve address it?

Your site says "Pensieve watches your folders, repos and agent sessions and re-indexes what changed. Uncommitted edits count, and every worktree is tracked by branch, so your agents never work from stale context." but you don't define what "stale context" is - if I'm exploring 3 different implmentations of the same concept across 3 different branches, which one is the "stale context"?

Could you take a few minutes to explain the what and the how? Links to writeup to blog posts or files in your repo would be very helpful.

Finally, can I use Pensieve with Paseo? What if I wanted to expose Pensieve's capability to my Paseo setup?

> I truly believe its unintended positives are somewhat worthwhile.

If the point you're making is that solving complicated, synthetic programming challenges helped built your stamina and mental endurance, is there another way you could have built the same but in a much more productive and pleasurable manner?

Perhaps in a manner that would also have resulted in the improvement of your community or humanity as a whole instead of being the millionth person to "solve" the same exact problem?

That might work for end user facing services but isn't the best fit for infrastructure. For infrastructure, you need something that people in the business understand well, are comfortable using, speaks the same language of operations so that vocabulary is well understood, and battle tested in production.

That's why Kubernetes has gained a lot of traction, not because 99% of companies need the scalability of Kubernetes, but it is a well understood concept, suite of services, and the vocabulary is very common now and well understood.

Nomad is a great fit for most compared to Kubernetes but failed to gain adoption because of these reasons.

An accurate title would be "IBM archives the IBM-HashiCorp Boundary Community Edition repo".

That "HashiCorp" in the title is a farce. The "Hashi" of the HashiCorp is far gone. IBM and "Corp" are redundant.

Community Editions don't make sense to the MBAs at IBM unless killing those off would create a global backlash (loss of goodwill for no positive revenue outcome is not good to an MBA. If loss of goodwill however, results in positive revenue, that's a good thing to an MBA. This is a well regarded, well studied and highly respected, revenue boosting MBA concept called "enshittification"). MBAs know that anything that doesn't directly translate into either viral growth or revenue next quarter is a waste of investor dollars. That makes anything else a risk to their own careers.

Boundary is past its viral growth stage, so the MBA needs to see revenue next quarter. Boundary fails the test there, so off with it!

HashiCorp was an innovative company founded by two engineers that built a lot of foundational, transformational infra products. Then, in a growth frenzy based off the traction of these tools they raised tremendous, vast sums of money and subsequently ~lost control of their vision~ hired MBAs, and the company went down the drain as well, or as MBAs call it - got acquired.

What remains of those tools are a BSL that focuses on maintenance operations and feature requests that strictly ride along a highly scrutinized cost-benefit decision matrix of rent seeking behavior off IBM's contracts with organizations that had already embraced those tools.

Billions of tokens have been burned in creating PPTs and Excel sheets, and emails discussing them, about why the Boundary Community Edition should be archived and abandoned.

No. Infisical is headed the same direction. Most of the secrets management and PAM bits that matter are not even in the open source repo, you need a paid license to get access.

Infisical was really amazing. It did precisely what I needed and any missing pieces would go in as a PR that would be quickly reviewed and merged. Then came talk about raising more funds, signing up more enterprise customers. Then came refactors to "improve the architecture" and "increase security". All the core pieces I depended on were moved behind an enterprise license.

Want Infisical to support Forgejo logins or runners via keys minted by step-ca? Enterprise license. Special secret cubbys or enclaves? Enterprise license.

Anything outside a toy usecase for a home user - Enterprise license.

A year ago I spent ~3 focused weeks ripping out every piece of Infisical in my infra and replacing it with a mix of Keycloak, Conjur and Age/SOPS. They are ugly, hard to work with, setup and debug - I'm not proud of this monster but I won't have to deal with what's going to happen to Infisical.

Infisical has every right to do this, I'm not complaining about that. I'm simply mentioning that we have seen this movie before, including the company in the title, so at this point, the tells are clear.

Google suspended my Google Voice account by mistake: https://www.google.com/appsstatus/dashboard/incidents/qqWhZS...

They restored access after about 4 hours, but during that window:

- Google Voice disappeared from Takeout, so I could not access my historical data

- I had no option to port my number to another provider

- Incoming text forwarding was disabled, which locked me out of financial, municipal, health, and payroll apps.

When I called some of those providers to update my phone number, they wanted to authenticate me with a one-time code sent to the suspended Google Voice number! They would not accept an email link and the only options were to either visit them in person or by certified letter.

I have been using this number since GrandCentral, before it migrated to Google Voice, and had never had an issue until yesterday.

The suspension was eventually reversed once the error was discovered, but it exposed a serious planning and design failure in Voice. Even if Google believes it needs to block outgoing activity during an abuse investigation, incoming texts should remain available. Removing Takeout access and preventing port-out during a mistaken suspension seems hard to justify.

This doesn't seem to be a one off - I stumbled across https://www.reddit.com/r/Googlevoice/ and found that this has been an ongoing issue - I hope atleast one person here can affect some positive changes.

I'm also lucky I wasn't in middle of an emergency myself requiring phone calls during that time - that could have had far more disastrous consequences.

> Replace "calm" with "privately owned".

I wouldn't make that claim - it's about the mindset. I've seen plenty of privately owned companies where the owners heavily churn through employees extracting as much as they can from each person and spitting them out.

Their attitude is "I can't pay at or above market, so this employee will eventually leave, so why should I invest in this employee? Let me extract as much as I can while they are here"

> Getting laid off doesn’t just rattle your career; it shakes the very foundation of your life. I've seen friends lose their jobs and go into an existential tailspin. It's not uncommon for them to blame themselves and to feel immense guilt and shame. The experience is especially hard on parents whose families depend on them for income.

What shook me up is when top performing coworkers were "laid off" because, due to recent downmarket conditions, there were slightly less competent candidates available at a heavy discount. These top performing coworkers worked extremely hard, were great at their jobs and often sacrificed personally when the company needed them but they were good negotiators as well and had negotiated good, above market salaries.

Once the project took off, the owners fired them and replaced them with cheaper workers who weren't as good but good enough to maintain and update the product.

It feels to me like the owners gave these people an impression that they would be long term employees, where their short term sacrifices would pay off long term, but effectively used them as flat rate contractors while paying them employee rates (instead of contractor rates).

I wish there was a way to detect such owners.

> Calm companies are not exciting. They’re not inspiring. You won’t do your best work there.

Explain more. Also, ensure you're not conflating "calm companies" with "cheap companies" where the owners are focused on spending as little money as possible, including paying people as little money as possible and claim they spend so little in order to "spend responsibly" - those places are depressing and I am curious if there's a way to detect "calm companies" from "cheap companies"

> They just don’t pay SV wages.

As a candidate, how do you separate this kind of company from one where the owners are cheap and want to pay you as less as possible?

There are a lot of companies that advertise terrific WLB, pictures of their employees and their families laughing only to find out none of those employees work there any longer and the pictures were taken on their once-every-10-years retreat at a cheap hotel in MO or WY.

> If you were smart, you would have seen the financial crash of year 2XXX

Makes sense

> If you were smart you'd have seen that a foreign market for X would have opened up draining out all funding in the US and leaving that portion of the job market hollow

Makes sense

> If you were smart you'd have seen that bill that allowed X thousand more people in the country in this job dropping pay rates by half

Makes sense

> And I'm sure you are smart for having been born in a family that was somewhere near middle class and didn't have crippingling addictions or otherwise have issues that would put education somewhere not number 1 on the priority list. I'll clap my hands at how brilliant you are...

Doesn't make sense and then there's unhelpful sarcasm at the end

> But, what we're talking about here is those not born with all these gifts can lift themselves out of a pit of debt or worse a life that would lead to crime, so that all of us live in a better place. You have any suggestions on that. Or are you just going to lock yourself up in a gated community and not worry about that kind of thing?

Providing direct value to society and getting rewarded for doing so has been an evergreen suggestion that has always worked well.

This works well for the Chinese immigrant with literally no money and no grasp of English who starts off selling takeout and grows the business, as it does to the person who starts driving taxi cabs, again, with no money to start off at all and then saves some to lease their first taxi and hire their first employee and then the second taxi and then the second employee.

A morally just society should reward, not punish these people. We need to have more, not less of them and that happens my incentivizing the right behaviors and disincentivizing the wrong behaviors.

It's all about the mindset and taking responsibility for your own future. You can complain and blame your fate or you can give it the middle finger and grow.

But, what are some suggestions you have to lift people out of a pit of debt or crime?

> Banks are the winners here

Not really - banks would have made money on something else instead.

The real problem is that universities are making money off selling trash to children not old enough to drink yet.

Before loans were guaranteed, there were some checks and balances for how much trash universities could sell and at what price, but now that politicians have figured out there's nothing stopping them from taking money that's not theirs and paying it off to universities, the only losers are those who consume the trash and destroy their lives and their descendants.

> wouldn't they say that we are actually much wealthier per capita and more much productive than we were back then?

Wealthier (higher QoL, longer life expectancy etc) and more much productive, yes. However, affordability is lower precisely because everyone is more wealthy, so they demand more compensation (incentive to work), so every person has to now earn even more to afford to pay someone else more.

Globalization has put an upward pressure on wealth globally and has a deflating impact on affordability, which is in contrast to the unique position the U.S. was in allowing its citizens to enjoy extreme wealth growth right off WWII.

So yes, people are wealthier and more much productive, but they can afford less because everyone else are wealthier and more much productive as well and can compete for the same resources better than they were able to before (it's not that exciting to be a millionaire if everyone is also a millionaire).

> person gets crashed into and injured, then a poorly timed market crash eliminates 70% of their savings driving them into bankruptcy

I think you need to collide your imagination with reality by asking whether majority of the recipients of this subsidy ended up there due to these terrible situations outside their control similar to what you suggest.

The crash, injury, market crash are all events that have happened to everyone and sure, it does affect a few people worse than others, but, for the problem at hand, are those the root cause, or something else entirely?

and should society as a whole ensure people have the training and skills to be more resilient to impacts from crashes, injuries, market crashes?

Extrapolating exceptional situations and weaving them into a story that feels good and fits an evil narrative that will have a terrible impact on future generations to come isn't a step in the right direction.

This is a political trick that exploits people in bad situations and does nothing to ensure that future generations don't end up in similar bad situations.

> My biggest issue with these cancellations is that they don't seem to be fixing the underlying issue at all — that you can't default on your student loans

Lenders being selective about student loans is part of a larger feedback loop. That you can't default on your student loans removes a strong signal for a student to realize what they are planning to do isn't deemed productive by society, but that doesn't mean a well educated student won't figure this out on their own even in the lack of this strong signal.

A well educated person shouldn't need a lot of external feedback to figure out if you spend more than you earn, bad things will happen.

The root cause is schools are completely failing at their job of laying good foundations for generations of tomorrow and are not getting the feedback they need to be useful and political tricks like this further distorts the feedback loop.

This means students are not well educated - they might be able to recite Shakespeare or vomit out coding algorithms from a book but most of them lack logical thinking, clarity of mind, decision making that includes knowledge of finances and projections so you can answer the question "out of all the things I can do, what should I be doing right now?"

So they go and land themselves in a mess and then politicians exploit them by digging a deeper hole for them and their children.

> More smart people leads to better outcomes for everyone

smart people don't typically land themselves in a situation where they cannot respect their financial commitments.

> I mean aren't you really asking "What should I be doing X years from now"?

For a person to answer what they should be doing X years from now, well, they first, need to be able to answer what they should be doing right now, very well.

> Is part of your great plan in making things better just unaliving these people?

That is quite a stretch.

Let us simplify things down a bit: on an individual basis, these subsidies are a few hundred dollars a month - which means that while that's nothing to scoff at, the recepients already have something else going on and making a living already. It might not be a great living but this subsidy isnt going to, for example, take someone destitute and homeless and put them in a position to become financially independent.

What would have stopped destitution and homeless would have been a better education. Now yes, there are well educated people who due to bad luck have become destitute and homeless but those are the exception, not the norm for well educated people to end up in.

Schools are not getting the feedback they need to be useful and political tricks like this further distorts the feedback loop.

We should really take a few minutes to consider what this means for not just our future but our future generations.

I think arguments that go along the lines of "I worked extremely hard to minimize my loans and now I felt betrayed" is missing the bigger evil lurking in the shadows: schools in the U.S. don't teach what really needs to be taught and political tricks like this further distort the feedback loop.

Schools should teach logical thinking, clarity of mind, decision making that includes knowledge of finances and projections so you can answer the question "out of all the things I can do, what should I be doing right now?"

"Follow your passion" worked when the U.S. was enjoying extreme wealth growth right off WWII - at that time you could shine shoes and own a single bedroom house away from the city. Weaving baskets and selling them could be the only thing you did and rent half a home for the rest of your life.

This is a cheap political trick that makes things worse. This is a perfect example of why a government shouldn't be trusted to allocate resources efficiently.

I am also concerned that this now opens an expectation that this current party will periodically forgive loans in the future - so, as long as you keep voting them into power, it doesn't matter what decisions you make, you won't have to suffer too terribly for them.

The right call would have been to invest these dollars in reworking education and schooling so that our future generations don't repeat the same mistakes we did and end up looking for handouts because we failed to learn how to make the right decisions.

While the intentions for this might not be evil, the effect is terribly so and disempowering for future generations.

To those who got some relief from this subsidy - I hope this helps you feel a bit better but hold those who put you in this situation accountable. Don't let politicians take advantage of you like this. Take a few minutes to write a letter to your school and college and tell them how they failed you and what you wish they had done instead.

The future of our country depends on your feedback

Then I assume you have a custom Kubernetes LB that can handle non-HTTP TCP and UDP traffic because you choosing Kubernetes and the design restrictions that comes with it does not affect how the dev solves problems?

The underlying orchestrator definitely affects how the software needs to behave and is definitely not irrelevant.

> If you guys don't see the value of being able to click on a button on a website to deploy, perfectly, everytime over some guy sshing into the box and running git pull I dunno what to tell you.

Maybe clicking a button that sshes into the box and runs git pull?

> honestly, who needs the ability to manage complex applications with any semblance of ease?

The argument being made here is majority of applications are rarely complex and hence dont require managing that complexity.

A simple webservice fronted by a simple reverse proxy like Caddy running on a single "modern PC" can do wonders without any Kubernetes needing to get involved.

> All those things you (a developer) could mostly clone, slightly customize and ship both to a development k8s cluster and to a prod k8s cluster (with all the safety nets already in place).

How did/does the devs create, test new code and debug issues? Can they do that locally on their local laptop? If so, how?

> unnecessarily complicated with k8s

Kubernetes is/was a way to fight off walled gardens from cloud providers. The other path would have been to learn the bespoke implementation of each cloud provider depending on what that employer ended up using.

Kubernetes was at the right place, at the right time just as AWS was trying to force feed people their own proprietary solution, as Azure was trying to wall off people into their own walled garden, as GCP was being Google just not giving a damn about any other usecase than what works great at a massive search company.

With Kubernetes, developers can learn one API to deploy their applications and hopefully it works on AWS, Azure, GCP, DO, OVH or a laptop at home.

So that way, developers can learn one thing and transfer their knowledge at an employer that hosts on AWS, and then another that hosts on Azure and so on.

This is in contrast to the experience of a Python developer who's mastered FastAPI/Flask/SQLAlchemy and feels absolutely lost in a Django project or an Angular developer who stares a Next.js project wondering what the heck is happening and how it all works. Neither a Next.js or an Angular developer would start off with an AWS Amplify solution if they could help it.