Au contraire, the reality was more like you had an obscure bug, you wrote a detailed and cohesive question, and it was immediately closed as a duplicate of something unrelated but with a superficially-similar name from 5 years prior, and then you were threatened with a ban.

StackOverflow was easily one of the most toxic communities on the internet and I don't miss it.

Not sure about the rest but you should be skeptical about anything that serial grifter says.

This is the guy so out of touch he thought it was a good look to post about how having LLMs summarize your children’s lives to you in a podcast was a “cool idea”.

He’s the reason Ilya and the other top talent left OpenAI.

He lied brazenly about the capabilities of GPT 5.

Anyways, They call him Scam Altman for a reason.

Is that "Serious Software"?

Other people, not so much.

I don't particularly like DHH either but web software is definitely serious. Shopify (which you seem to have confused with Spotify) runs on Rails. So does GitHub.

Those are both huge platforms handling a ton of traffic. If GitHub isn't "serious software" then what is?

I mean, yes and no. Merely selecting the targets is not really an advantage in and of itself. I'm sure Iran could select hundreds of targets in the 48 States at the drop of a hat, but they don't have the air power to hit those targets so the air tasking cycle breaks down.

The air tasking cycle upon which modern NATO air campaigns are predicated and carried out is a cyclical 6-step process:

1. objectives not yet met/effects required

2. target development/selection to deliver those effects/meet those objectives

3. weaponeering, allocation, prioritization (can a hellfire launched from a drone do this or do we need something more specialized?)

4. actually write and issue the air tasking orders that cause air sorties to be flown

5. execution of said ATOs

6. assessment; GOTO 1

Normally this is a 72-hour cycle and your ops centre would be running 3+ of these cycles in overlapping fashion so that every 12-24 hours you have one loop reaching the top. AI appears to be in heavy use in the target development step, but there are diminishing returns for speed here. At some point there's just no added benefit for choosing more targets because aircraft can only transit to/from the area so fast. Also the other loops are still running and you're potentially developing targets without knowledge of effects being delivered by the other ATO loops so you're now wasting effort. In other words it's not like a computer where more hertz is better; you might get better results by simply waiting for one of the other cycle's kinetic results that will better inform your own target development stage.

I have mostly resigned myself to watching in unsurprised disgust as tech companies (aided by oodles of HN users who work there!) ruin everything they touch with legal impunity.

The design (not sure about its goal) maximizes incentive for medium-complexity ideas being expressed in comments with at most a handful of replies.

The “comments on a submission with ranking based on votes” model is fundamentally unsuited for in-depth, thoughtful discussions. Everything we write in this comment section will be mostly forgotten by tomorrow because there is no notification system for when someone replies to your comments.

Zero people are going back through old submissions more than a day or two old and looking for insightful comments to reply to.

Pretty sure it’s all vowels isn’t it?

“Thee”: apple, evening, island, offer, underpass

“Thus”: any other words where you don’t need to avoid a glottal stop to differentiate the word.

Because it's inexpensive and not designed to be tamper-resistant. If preventing this type of thing is your goal there are chips out there designed to break irrepairably if tampered with.