SWIG[0] is a viable option for incorporating C code as well.

0 - https://swig.org/Doc4.4/Go.html#Go

  Copilot is for entertainment purposes only.

- Tarot cards[1]

- Reality TV shows

- Psychic hotlines

Caveat emptor.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8_Ball

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot

  After a team member summoned Copilot to correct
  a typo in a PR of mine ...

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

This is incorrect. For example, fuzzy logic[0] can model analog ("continuous") truth beyond discrete digital representations, such as 1/0, true/false, etc.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

> Rofl. Someone hasn't discovered Functionalism or the identity of indiscernables. Must be hard laboring under such a poverty of reasoning.

First, the correct spelling is "indiscernibles" not "indiscernables".

Second, thank you for motivating me to research the origin of the quote:

  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak 
  and to remove all doubt.[0]

0 - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/

> This is false for constructs of information, ie. a "manifested model" of a sorted list is a sorted list and a "manifested model" of a sorting algorithm is a sorting algorithm.

Specious. Constructs existing strictly within a mathematical model are not concepts external to what they model by definition. Constructs of information qualify as same as they are subject to assessment traditionally performed by stakeholders (humans). Continuing with the example provided, sorting algorithms exist as well-defined mathematical concepts and can be applied to other model concepts, yet do not transcend their manifestation in program logic.

> To wit, an accurate algorithmic model of moral reasoning is moral reasoning ...

A model of moral reasoning can only produce results to which an entity external to the model determines correctness. The model, in and of itself, has no capability to assert same beyond what it has been modeled to process.

Algorithm implementations are programmatic manifestations of mathematical models and, as such, are not what they model by definition.

To wit, NOAA hurricane modelling[0] are obviously not the hurricanes which they model.

0 - https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hurricane-modeling-prediction/

A meta-question I posit is; at what point does the investment in trying to get "LLMs to usefully write software despite their non-deterministic nature" become more than solving the problems at hand without using those tools?

For the purpose of the aforementioned, please assume commercial use as opposed to academic research.

Neither can commercial LLM-based offerings.

Algorithms do not possess ethics nor morality[0] and therefore cannot engage in Machiavellianism[1]. At best, algorithms can simulate same as pioneered by ELIZA[2], from which the ELIZA effect[3] could be argued as being one of the best known forms of anthropomorphism.

0 - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/ethics-and-moralit...

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism_(psychology)

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

Consider the halting problem[0]:

  In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
  of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
  program and an input, whether the program will finish
  running, or continue to run forever. The halting problem is
  undecidable, meaning that no general algorithm exists that
  solves the halting problem for all possible program–input
  pairs.

Put another way, we all know "1 + 2 = 3" since elementary school. Basic math assumed everyone knows.

Imagine an environment where "1 + 2" 99% of the time results in "3", but may throw a `DivisionByZeroException`, return NaN[1], or rewrite the equation to be "PI x r x r".

Why would anyone trust that environment to reliably do what they instructed it to do?

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN

As "a former doc tree committer", I am sure you are aware that no set of documentation artifacts are without error of some sort. To be exact, you provided two examples of your identifying what you believe to be same.

I stand by my statement that the cited FreeBSD resources are "a gold standard" while acknowledging they are not perfect. What they are, again in my humble opinion, is vastly superior to what I have found to exist in the Linux world. Perhaps your experience contradicts this position; if so, I respect that.

> Maybe slightly optimistic.

The longest without rebooting two prod FreeBSD servers I was once responsible for, including applying userland patches, was roughly 3000 days (just over 8 years).

The link you provided begins with the declaration:

  Written by Amazon Staff

> I find it somewhat overblown.

As I quoted in a peer comment:

  Dave Treadwell, Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services, told 
  staff on Tuesday that a "trend of incidents" emerged since 
  the third quarter of 2025, including "several major" 
  incidents in the last few weeks, according to an internal 
  document obtained by Business Insider. At least one of 
  those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant 
  Q, while others exposed deeper issues, another internal 
  document explained.
  
  Problems included what he described as "high blast radius 
  changes," where software updates propagated broadly because 
  control planes lacked suitable safeguards. (A control plane 
  guides how data flows across a computer network).

Do you?

Regarding guides specifically, FreeBSD has exceptional resources:

  FreeBSD Handbook[0]
  FreeBSD Porter's Handbook[1]
  FreeBSD Developers' Handbook[2]
  The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System[3]

0 - https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/

1 - https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/

2 - https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/developers-handbook/

3 - https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Design_and_Implemen...

The confusion is not mine own. From the article cited:

  Dave Treadwell, Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services, told 
  staff on Tuesday that a "trend of incidents" emerged since 
  the third quarter of 2025, including "several major" 
  incidents in the last few weeks, according to an internal 
  document obtained by Business Insider. At least one of 
  those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant 
  Q, while others exposed deeper issues, another internal 
  document explained.
  
  Problems included what he described as "high blast radius 
  changes," where software updates propagated broadly because 
  control planes lacked suitable safeguards. (A control plane 
  guides how data flows across a computer network).

If you believe coding agents produce working code, why was the decision below made?

  Amazon orders 90-day reset after code mishaps cause
  millions of lost orders[0]

  Now that we have software that can write working code ...

I suppose the only question remaining is if peanut M&Ms are higher-kinded when contrasted with the chocolate-only nullary type.

:-D