It really felt like using AI tooling of a year or two ago. It wasn’t understanding my prompts, going on tangents, not following the existing style and idioms. Maybe Claude was hungover or doesn’t like mondays, but the contrast with Go was surprising.

One example is that I wanted to add an extra prometheus metric to keep track of an edge case in some for loop. All it had to do was define a counter and increment it. For some reason it would define the counter the line before increment it, instead of defining it next to the other counters outside of the for loop. Technically not wrong (defining a counter is idempotent), but who does that? Especially when the other counters are defined elsewhere in the same function?

Anyway, n=1 but I feel it has an easier time with Go.

For me, this is a bit different. Writing code has always been the bottleneck. I get most of my joy out of solving edge cases and finding optimizations. My favorite projects are when I’m given an existing codebase with the task, “When mars and venus are opposite eachother, the code gets this weird bug that we can’t reproduce.”

When a project requires me to start from scratch, it takes me a lot longer than most other people. Once I’ve thought of the architecture, I get bored with writing the implementation.

AI has made this _a lot_ easier for me.

I think the engineers who thrive wi be the ones know when to use what tool. This has been the case before AI, AI is just another tool allowing more people to thrive.

Google is measuring where on the road most hard braking events happen.

Insurers measure who is having the most hard braking events.

We keep our roles very simple and they will not do anything complicated. Ansible is for configuring a machine, that’s it.

If we need to do anything more complicated, we’ll write it in a testable program (usually in Go).

There are some small bugs that you can work around. The rework to the new version has been in progress for about two years but it works just fine right now.

Saying this on HN, of course.

I hard disagree. Your comment to me reads as if a paper should either prove a new theory or disprove an existing theory.

However, publishing new results without a clear understanding of how it works is just as valid and this seems to be that. In Phsyics and Astronomy, new observations are often published without a theory of how it works. This is not a bad thing, that is part of the collaborative nature of science. The same holds true for papers suggesting a new theory, but lacking either observational or theoretical proof.

If you have staging/production deployments in CI/CD and have your Kubernetes clusters managed in code, then adding feature deployments is not any different from what you have done already. Paying for a third party app seems (to me) both a waste of money and a problem waiting to happen.

How we do it: For a given helm chart, we have three sets of value files; prod, staging and preview. An Argo application exists for each prod, staging and preview instance.

When a new branch is created, a pipeline runs that renders a new preview chart (with some variables based on branch/tag name), creates a new argo application and commits this to the kubernetes repo. Argo picks it up, deploys it to the appropriate cluster and that’s it. Ingress hostnames get picked up and DNS records get created.

When the branch gets deleted, a job runs to remove the argo application and done.

It’s the same for staging and production, I really wouldn’t want a different deployment pipeline for preview environments - that just increases complexity and the chances of things going wrong.

To get them tired, you need to chill them out and have them use their brain and/or nose.

Maybe try some sniffing games, sit down during the walk and have them just take in the environment, do some obedience that makes them think, or throw their food in the grass and have them figure it out.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get to that.

I understand your point, but I fail to see how this law will change that.

The whole show is to motivate people to want to pick up a book, which to me sounds like an emphasis on doing.

If you’d replace this with posters or shows that just say “READ A BOOK”, it would not be as effective.

If a person is unable to get a coffee without an assistance dog, and the dog is properly trained, why would you want to rob them of participating in a normal life?

Something being "just" for you, does not mean this holds for everyone.

In regards to dogs in coffee shops, etc. Aslong as there are enough spaces that allow dogs, it shouldn’t be a problem when most other places don’t allow them. I think there are enough people that enjoy dogs to make that work.

In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest.

Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.

It’s not really something you can or cannot concede to, unless you are of the opinion America is the only sovereign state in the world.