gyesxnuibh

> You didn't seem to have a reputable point to address there. Just an assertion

I mean in my anecdotal evidence, AI has not been meeting bigger picture requirements and needs hand holding. Even on the newest models. So are you not experiencing that?

> I don't see why that's bad. If anything it's better for AI - way easier to say "always use at least Astra/Opus 5.5" than it is to fire your crap employees.

So you're saying you'd rather have AI make a consistently bad engineer inconsistently mid and a consistently good engineer inconsistently mid over what they usually are?

I much prefer consistency in my engineers. Especially when investing in them helps them improve.

And the reason I think it makes good engineers inconsistently mid is because look at the drop in quality as a customer from big tech which hires top talent. I had to cancel my Spotify subscription because it's become so sloppy.

You ignored my comment about NFR. But, if you really wanna harp on the non-determinism. I don't think humans and LLMs are actually non-deterministic in the same way?

Humans are non-deterministic when compared between humans. But if you give a human the same task they can be pretty consistent. Models quality varies much more than a single human does and human's reasoning don't reset with their context window. Otherwise tenure wouldn't matter, companies wouldn't try to retain specific talent, and pay bands wouldn't be so wide. But thanks for spelling it out.

Does humans being non-deterministic make coding solved? I'm not sure how this relates to the main point.

I'm also not sure what humans being non-deterministic even means here. The point is if you're comparing results with NFR, pure agentic coding falls short.

I do think that was a dumb gotcha. That list could've functioned with bullets instead of numbers as the content was unordered. I suspect very few people would pay attention to the numbers there.

[flagged]

Just make it "contractors training..." And then it's fine?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but the heartbeat time outs and leader election time outs are static. And yeah if you make votes and heartbeats time out in a way that nobody can be elected, then raft can't make progress.

I've never had this be a problem in reality but AWS has a pretty good backbone. Maybe if you were running it over a pretty unreliable network this would be an issue?

The raft algorithm works and if you implemented a less complex state machine (like using a simpler kv store that doesn't need global event ordering via revisions and watches) it would work. That's what antithesis said they did to test the raft algorithms in the other article linked

Their lock, leader election, sessions, and leases are all awful and I'd never recommend anyone to use those. But as a strongly consistent kv store and if you need the watch mechanics, its useful. It has its place and that's mostly being used by kubernetes.

Having run a fleet of 100s of etcd clusters for 10000s of rps, and the fact that upstream runs tests similar to antithesis and recently partnered with antithesis [0], and jepsen has tested it long ago as well [1]. Etcd's raft algorithm is fine. Someone even did a TLA+ proof on it in the last couple years[2]. Yes there was a correctness issue a few years ago but otherwise the person you're replying to doesn't know what they're talking about. Also those bugs have nothing to do with the raft implementation, but instead the state machine implemented on top.

0: https://etcd.io/blog/2025/autonomus_testing_with_antithesis/

1: https://jepsen.io/analyses/etcd-3.4.3

2: https://github.com/etcd-io/raft/pull/113

My point in that second question was: Is the human challenge of getting a lot of inexperienced engineers to fully understand the LLM output actually worth the time, effort and money to solve vs sticking to solving the technical problems that you're trying to make the LLM solve?

Usually organizational changes are massive efforts. But I guess hype is a hell of an inertia buster.

I think they're saying typically the kernel one of the last places you'd expect the bug, so it shows that it is battle tested?

I don't think they're being snarky.

Does that work as well with non-strangers who are your coworker? I'm not sure.

Also if you're organizationally changing the culture to force people to put more effort in writing the code, why are you even organizationally using LLMs...?

> /tmp A directory made available for applications that need a place to create temporary files. Applications shall be allowed to create files in this directory, but shall not assume that such files are preserved between invocations of the application.

It doesn't say anything about what it's backed by.

That book was written with 40% of the engineers compared to when I left a couple years ago (not sure how many now with the layoffs now). I'm guessing those hires haven't read it yet. So yeah, reads like standards slipping to me.

My take away with the final statement of rolling it yourself if it sounds fun is to pick whatever technology that gets your pen on the paper so to speak.

If unity gets you making the thing or making the engine gets you making the thing, most important thing is motion.

You gotta avoid the paralysis and just pick the thing that seems feasible and start typing ;).

Yeah I'm on the maintainers side with the whole

> Do your job

Which is a volunteer based job lol. Even if it was said in a heated argument, the bug reporter never really apologizes from what I read.

Maybe that's a "strawman" though

Rewriting hundreds of thousands of lines of code just isn't really feasible honestly. Maybe you just mean the actually bottle neck can use C bindings or whatever. Or, maybe you can migrate some microservices and hope it goes smoothly. But, typing does more than performance.

It basically helps a ton of engineers work together efficiently which honestly is bigger than the compute cuz you can always throw more compute at all problem these days anyway.

I don't think typing is necessarily to prevent bugs either. It's to reduce the cognitive load of writing code. Others mention that intellisense and LLMs work better with types. Types do a lot more than catching a runtime error of a method not existing.

I am curious about Odin, I'm mostly a go dev so getting something without the GC and go schedule that writes similarly is really interesting to me.

Corporations don't just blip into existence overnight. Startups use a prototyping language fixing the problems and then suddenly you realize you need types and rewriting is a waste of time, money, and a risk to the business.

> Does your personal project make money and/or need to be launched quickly?

This makes it clear that you understand why the language would be chosen in the first place, so not sure why it's not clear that eventually requirements change and you need a way to iteratively improve things while still shipping things.

What's the ML in HTML stand for? I think that's probably the crux of the argument. Are we gonna evolve it past its name?

Accomplishing things for me feels a lot like solving a good puzzle. Like a crossword.

I tried using an LLM to help with a small hardware project and ended up throwing out all the code halfway down the line and doing it myself. I don't have a good time with LLMs and mostly only use it for work.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. People still do embroidering even though there's crazy embroidery machines (though the cost barrier there is probably related). Maybe LLMs will be too cost prohibitive in the future (once we start paying the real total cost of LLMs).

You're right that a lot less people will be writing code like a lot less people are sewing these days but people still do it for fun.

P.S.: I really enjoyed reading moonbound :)

I took it to mean that people (clients) would give the project fake data for fun. But there's no statement about how those people might find the project (basically not necessarily people from hackernews).

You both are agreeing with each other.

I could've sworn it was removed from the handbook like 2018/2019

I'm a little confused on how this helped your design doc? It seems like you picked the design that the LLM could best implement?

I was really curious about how it helped you iron out the problems but couldn't figure it out from your description

Well my most trusted assistant would be the kernel by that definition

Not all jobs are created equal. I know the quality control for software written for Web is very very different than the software written for cloud.

You're arguing that the standards for medical device firmware should be the same for Pinterest which is honestly just a waste of and effort.

I can see both sides of this specific discussion but treating SW engineering generally as rocket science is lying to yourself ;)

Who catches breaks more than men?

You wouldn't get an answer from a tiger. Sorry, my lack of empathy for you is making me woefully obtuse.

There are other societies than the American one and I recommend you look at them before you make such sweeping statements