ETA: I bristle deeply at your idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is letting their emotions get the better of them. Perhaps the world is not as black and white as you're painting it?

I think on one level you can look at these folks and say "well, they may be able to see more clearly because they aren't so wrapped up in it all" but I've done a lot of self-reflection and I simply don't think this is true.

Burning a sea of tokens to arrive at the equivalent functionality and having a small team of people oversee that process is rarely going to be the fix to the organizational problems that surround typical failed/stagnant software projects.

Rewrites are rarely about the organization of the symbols and are more often about a change in the fundamental understanding of the organization about the problem they've solving. Remember: People change slowly.

People are often too tied to the idea of "rewrite" as a replay of all current capabilities, but should instead be thinking about fundamentally different primitive capabilities of the system. It's not a "redo" if you're changing some of your fundamental assumptions about the problem space.

I've seen a few "Use Postgres for Everything!" posts lately. It seems to be fashionable. It reminds me of the Choose Boring Technology[1] thing from 2018 or so, but more specific to a database.

I think the ideas of "don't add unnecessary dependencies" and "ruthlessly evaluate tradeoffs" and "prefer simplicity" and so on are general and have very little to with postgres, so when I see things like "All you need is X" I roll my eyes a little, because these decisions are highly dependent on your use case, and taken as blanket advice it is generally _bad_ advice even if the underlying rationale is sound.

[1]: https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology

ETA: I am going through their list and so much of this means that you are going to manage your own PG cluster and not take advantage of Aurora or RDS, which means you're already committing to a major tradeoff if you want to use a lot of these custom extensions.

While I agree that simply calling something "AI slop" is not constructive, it is not my job to voluntarily review LLM-extruded crap. In the past I would provide constructive criticism because there was an actual conversation taking place. The producer had put at least enough thought into it such that my engagement didn't feel like replying to a chatbot, but that's what it feels like now, so unless I see some considerable effort and original thought on the author's part, I am likely to drop a "slop" comment and move on with my day.