it would have made more sense to just mount the motor and the planetary, but I think the planetary is important here.

Maybe they're just really good at hiding it, but I don't really remember a time under any administration when we could say something like 'as a country we're now supporting Russia and abandoning Ukraine and our traditional allies in Europe because they offer much better bribes'.

we should be going after corruption by anyone, its extremely corrosive. I don't understand why if that's a concern why we're supposed to be ok with turning it up to 11. Not only outright personal deal making, but the active replacement of foreign governments, state and local officials with people who know how to play that game properly.

What have you got to even begin to claim an equivalence here. Pelosi's stock trades? Biden's sleazy son?

The Cray T3D had a really nice distributed services model (really kind of a distributed exokernel) that would be worth emulating

on some machines there was an interactive ganged run facility like 'mpirun'. I think even this distinction where there are 'login' or 'service' nodes and anonymous runners would be at least a little structure. I guess you could argue that k8s is this, but it kind of falls short and seems to require a lot of continuous propping up.

I worked on a single system image project that didn't ever get shipped. it turns out that a syscall proxy layer isn't that difficult to implement, and that leaves you with an undisturbed user space.

anyways, there are a whole host of design options that don't look like k8s or slurm. and having spent some time recently on non-hyperscaler clusters, that bottom level of bringup (provisioning, networking management, reporting, fault tolerance, distributed filesystems) is really a nightmare. I think we lost a lot of traction there by raising generations exclusively in someone else's operational context.

people always talk about losing the excellent debugging facilities that linux gives you. if a service crashes in a big cloud environment what is that you do now that works so well. do you think its intractable to implement that in a single-process kernel?

and then they wrapped it another layer of translation, and then another and I think more. and things started breaking because I needed the right version of autotools, and at some point I started just running "cc *.c -I. -o foo" before even starting to try to use configure, and it usually worked and saved me a lot of screwing around.

its certainly settled down some, but only because everything is really linux. but still we're here more than 30 years later checking for socklen_t.

it was a always a bad plan.

for some reason that's offended the US, who then proceeds to extra-judiciously impose their will on citizens of other sovereign nations who aren't even in the US.

so who is coloring outside the lines here?

this doesn't sound like your model, and I'm unclear what it means to break a test. maybe test automation, in which case, sure that seems fair game for AI, but that not where the real meat is.

I think writing tests is a great use of ai, but only if the tests themselves are throughly reviewed or are themselves validated by statements in a formal system.

I would hope that at least some of this would get standardized over time