jdub

Post-CFEngine (Puppet, Ansible, Terraform) and cloud platform (CloudFormation) infrastructure-as-code is over a decade old.

Docker's popularisation of containers is just over a decade old.

But containers (and especially container orchestration, i.e. Kubernetes) are still entirely ignorable in production. :-D

I'm threatened by other people wrongly believing that LLMs possess elements of intelligence that they simply do not.

Anthropomorphosis of LLMs is easy, seductive, and wrong. And therefore dangerous.

Sure, LLM companies and proponents bear responsibility for the positioning of LLM tools, and particularly their presentation as chat bots.

But from a systems point of view, it's hard to ignore the inequity and inconvenience of the US health system driving people to unrealistic alternatives.

(I wonder if anyone's gathering comparable stats on "Doctor LLM" interactions in different countries... there were some interesting ones that showed how "Doctor Google" was more of a problem in the US than elsewhere.)

Pause for a moment and think through a realistic estimation of the numbers and proportions involved.

    BARTLET
    By the way, the words you are looking for are, "Oh, good grief!"

(And, in some cases, a desire to deny the people and perspectives from which the phrase originated.)

But what I said was "reduced security footprint", considering the trade offs between a single statically linked binary and a full (or even cut down) Linux distribution.

Verification is substantially more challenging.

Currently, even for an expert in the domains of the software to be verified and the process of verification, defining a specification (even partial) is both difficult and tedious. Try reading/comparing the specifications of e.g. a pure crypto function, then a storage or clustering algorithm, then seL4.

(It's possible that brute force specification generation, iteration, and simplification by an LLM might help. It's possible an LLM could help eat away complexity from the other direction, unifying methods and languages, optimising provers, etc.)

The first commit was pretty fully-formed, which without "AI" glasses on just means someone did a whole bunch of work before exposing/releasing their work.

It makes me very curious.

Delivered to GitHub fully-formed: A grand total of 9 commits (mostly docs and CI fixes), all in the last 5 hours, and v0.1.0 released 3 hours ago.

No external database/storage-layer dependencies, so it's not "just" a CLI/server/parser wrapper around other libraries doing the "real work".

It appears to have a substantial test suite (76% code coverage, not skipping the scary bits), and great documentation.

There's a bit of context on https://github.com/stoolap but not much else about the author, project goals, relationship to other systems, e.g. it could be the data layer for something else.

(Interestingly, there's an archived stoolap-go repo with a very similar Go implementation of a columnar/hybrid database, so this is not the author's "first draft".)

Switching from Calibri back to Times New Roman "because DEI" 100% tracks with this administration's spiteful Project 2025 vandalism.

    unsafe {
        // this is normal Rust code, you can write as much of it as you like!
        // (and you can bend some crucial safety rules)
        // but try to limit and document what you put inside an unsafe block.
        // then wrap it in a safe interface so no one has to look at it again
    }

An LLM chat bot has no agency, understanding, empathy, accountability, etc. etc.

The previous poster might also consider all the high profile, independent, and influential publications across various subjects that grew out of blogging – e.g. HuffPo, Pitchfork, Jezebel, so many video gaming and entertainment sites... many of which were sadly bought up by rich idiots and/or existing media conglomerates.

- "yellow cake uranium"

- "a land without people for a people without a land"

  less foo.log
  grep 09-25-2025 foo.log | less

And these are the consequences and indeed the intentions of open source. There's no "ripping off", this is what Open Source licenses permit. If contributors didn't want this to be possible, they shouldn't have licensed their software this way.

(Of course, WordPress itself is a fork of a GPL project, so didn't have the option, and you could equally say it's "ripping off" that project. But we don't. Because it's open source. And that's how it works.)

The web existed before Chrome, and will continue to exist afterward.