But in truth, all the projects with microservices I have seen in real life had deployment coordination problems, and looked to me like distributed monoliths. So maybe it's a 'no true scotsman' thing. Maybe they are always, or at least most of the time, harder.

Makes it harder to justify using them.

To me "Are you aware of the world you live in?" suggests "If you don't even know this, you don't know anything. This is the first thing anyone should know". I'm willing to learng if they meant something else, but I guess that's asking a lot.

Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

"This article is about nothing". "Well of course it is, they say right on the page they talked to some people".

"An insider told me NVidia spent 10 billions on hamburgers yesterday."

"An insider told me NVidia is thinking about maybe spending up to 10 billions on hamburgers or some foodstuffs by 2050".

Can you spot any differences?

> Nvidia has revised its plans to support a proposed OpenAI data center project in Ohio and is now expected to initially guarantee less than $120 billion

There is no actual information in this article. "Plan", "proposed", "expected", "initially", "less than". It's just a report on the thoughts of some people.

Unless you know how to build a sandbox that can simulate a TPM with a key inside that only Google knows. Or something like that. I'm not an expert but there's plenty of information on the internet about this. It's definitely more than "the sandbox is buggy".

It's not a human way to think, talk or write.

Why is this thing so difficult to name and you need to describe it in such a roundabout way? "Drones might be shot down a lot"? It's neither new nor an intellectual curiosity. "Drones are used for war" also not. It's been happening for years now. What is so interesting? Can you name it without references to generalizations of expressions of other references?

Seems ths qualifies in spades.

I'm sure some atheists could be convinced. The rule "all atheists will reject evidence of God" seems false. The rule "all atheists will accept evidence of God" also seems false. Life is more complicated than that. It depends on the atheist and on the evidence.

Do you see lots of posts about new compilers and languages and language features on HN in the last year? Maybe I just missed them. I'd love to read more posts like that and fewer about agent frameworks.

If anything it seems wide deployment of LLMs would go against this. When nobody writes code by hand anymore, who will care about the ergonomics of programming languages? And even if a few do care, how would you get adoption? I expect everyone will just use whatever is already used most.

What if your compiler could be fooled by some other developers into spending thousands of dollars, and still not produce the desired machine code in the end?

Replace the content in brackets with anything.