Have a look into Docker sbx for instance.

So the analogy isn't all that good is it?

You are comparing immature tech with very mature tech.

What technology emerged into the market fully finished?

If your point is "don't use technology until it is mature" then you are of course free to not use it for now.

But e.g. modern American evangelical churches are to me quite clearly quite far from the original meaning of the texts with some theology outright invented in 18th and 19th centuries.

It really is the case that what you bring to a text colors what you get out of it, and the more people insist that they are reading a text "as it is clearly written" the blinder they seem to be to this.

It has nothing with knowing you or not to do at all, I was just commenting on the contents of your post, not about you.

I meant that the act that you described (comparing religion with a virus) is in itself using the name-calling-aspect-of "virus". One is borrowing the negative connotation for a purpose, because one has (for other reasons) decided that the religion or ideology is bad.

The descriptive property of virus that you then mention (as in being "viral", packets of information in cell etc) equally applies to liberty, democracy and other things that (at least I) consider good.

Many things that you personally think are good (I don't know you but say for instance ideas around democracy or liberty) can also be described as viruses in the same way.

I guess you believe everyone gets the same starting point and same opportunities? How did you come to believe such a thing? Have you looked around to see what society is like?

But who knows what human "thinking" is really about. If I find a solution to something it is seldom by painstakingly tracing that A and B leads to C (for that I'd need pen and paper). Rather, thoughts just swirl around and then suddenly a solution, or a hunch about a direction to go in, pops into my mind. Who knows what such thoughts "look like" in humans. It is not all of it I can introspect.

Yes I can sort of follow along some kind of train of thought in my head, but there's a lot going on between each thing I'm consciously aware of that I'm not aware of at all, which probably dominates what you are consciously aware of. (Humans are experts at post-rationalization and so on.)

I see this pattern a lot in AI anthro discussions: (1) Assume humans are some kind of perfect idealistic reasonable beings. (2) Hold LLMs up to the standard of an perfect idealistic reasonable being. (3) Conclude that LLMs fails this test, and are therefore not "intelligent", or in this case "thinking", like humans are.

Problem with the argument is comparing humans in anyway to something that is idealistic, reasonable, intelligent in the sense that is implied in these discussions. Human minds are a mess too and fall short of the same standards, just in very different ways from LLMs.

("Escaping" user input is not good practice though, use parameters, assuming you are talking about SQL.)

CPU for test runs is cheap... and if you use any AI agent at all, tests runs faster than the agent does work. Why does it matter how much faster they run?

The goal of a regression test suite is to catch issues before you deploy to prod. That 95% is a nagging source of doubt. CAN you just release the code straight to prod? Or not?

Many times integration tests including the real postgres and real migration catches bugs for me before they go to prod.

Personally I would just never go with 95% fidelity in tests. Testing with the real postgres is just so good.

And just to get test coverage for the migrations themselves?

(In my case I also use stored procedures, RLS etc that needs those; with your setup that is just not on the table I think or you loose coverage of critical code.)

But for service layer tests I don't agree with you, including the actual production repository implementation and the DB is very useful.

It is like e2e tests, just leaving the frontend out. I really like having a lot of such tests to be productive with backend development.

To have a 100 such e2e tests complete quickly, spinning up SQL DBs cheaply is essential.

Also for actual e2e tests with frontend I prefer cheap DB clones rather than reusing DB between tests and having to worry about state between tests.

I think perfect layering was more relevant in the 2000-2010 with less powerful machines. Just making pseudo-integration tests and including more than may be strictly needed is fine. It completes quickly enough. When it breaks it is usually obvious what broke without limiting was code is included in the test.

What is the best way? Perhaps a tool that reads CDC and writes allocated event sequence numbers to another table would work ok, or would that have long latency?

And that CDC processor should then do the NOTIFY too.

Also on the consumer side in some usecases batching can drastically improve throughput. You don't even use LISTEN/NOTIFY then. Just run the consumer in a loop and each iteration process all new unprocessed messages, and store your last sequence number processed between iterations.

If our prisons are all random bricks glued together, that doesn't change the practical problem caused by latest AI models more easily exploiting this.

But to use a text templating language to generate YAML, which is not only structured, making it a bad match for character based templating with no knowledge of syntax, but indentation-based, making the combination almost seem like a joke.

Helm charts must be the worst engineering solution I have seen in popular use. First time I saw it I didn't believe it, that this was something people did, for real.

Minorities are, well, in miniority. Noone is at any point waging "everyone's supper" by trying out alternative ways of farming within their small miniority. (Meanwhile the majority IS risking everyone's supper in some decades).

Nuclear is different from your other examples because the choices of a small minority can drastically affect the vast majority.

There should be more, not less, experiments in alternative ways of life. I wish there was a lot more examples because we desperately need to change some things and some people need to be first.

As a non-American I don't know much about amish and there could be atrocities I am unaware of, but from what little I know I have always respected Amish for daring to be different, and for living sustainable and not contributing to climate change.

If you trade their belief in God with increased CO2 emissions -- why would that be a rational change to their culture?

So who are really misdirected humans? I would say those who sacrifice the planet on the altar of numbers stored in computer systems in banks...

Reading tip for you is "Sapiens" of Harari. Don't worry, he's an atheist, but he may contribute a more nuanced view on the role of religion in human culture (and he names capitalism as a religion too).

But I do have many years of experience working in a larger team and it's the same problem there (just that people want to merge after some days of working). I'm not sure if AI changes the picture much vs working in a team.

Either way one has to plan ahead a bit and select tasks that are not going to trample on each other. I can typically imagine roughly what the code generated is going to be (at least what files will likely be involved in what way) and when selecting tasks to work on I take into account if it's going to likely cause conflicts.

In my experience if different branches work on different things, Claude have no issue doing "trivial" merges where you just ended up changing different aspects of the same lines. Of course, if two branches rewrite the same pieces of code there's a problem -- so don't do that..