You are of course right that a signed package ecosystem would be great, it's just that you're asking people to do this labour for you for free. If you pay some third party to verify and sign packages for you? That's totally fine. Asking maintainers already under tremendous pressure to do yet another labour-intensive security task so you can benefit for free? That's out of balance.

Are they incapable of doing it? Probably not. Does it take real labour and effort to do it? Absolutely.

More like <25 years.

> I think being reliant on the fossil fuel supply chain for so long

France isn't. And they are net exporting their (nuclear fission) electricity to their neighbours who shut down nuclear power plants.

I mean if the devs and the users are all telling you it doesn't make sense, maybe it really doesn't make sense. Not everything is supposed to be able to do everything. Some things are targeted and focused on specific use cases.

Hypermedia libraries like htmx etc. are just doing these interactions, the ones that need a server request-response cycle. The difference is they get the response as already-rendered HTML, so they don't need to do anything further, just swap it in to the existing page. It's super simple and very efficient. And usually results in fewer AJAX calls which also are much more minimal and don't include any redundant data.

I don't understand...Rails does not replace a HA PostgreSQL cluster or Redis, they are orthogonal. Why would you not have to think about them?

Don't believe me? Check this out: https://tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat/

    
      Next Page
    

Also the article seems to be full of errors. Eg

> In HTMX, if the server returns a 500 error, the browser might swap the entire stack trace or the generic error page into the middle of a table by default. This is a poor user experience.

This is simply incorrect. By default htmx does not swap 4xx/5xx responses. Instead it triggers an error event in the DOM. Developers can choose to handle that event or they can choose to override the default behaviour and do a swap.

No, you need less than that! :-)

    ┍━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┑
    │                     how-to-make-a-damn-website.html                      │
    ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │                                 │
    │ 
How to Make a Damn Website
                                      │
    │                                                                          │
    │                                                                          │
    │ 
A lot of people want to make a website but don’t know where to start  │
    │ or they get stuck.
                                                   │
    ┕━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┙

I think you're focusing too much on the word 'favourite' and not enough on the fact that they didn't actually ask for a favourite tool. They asked for a favourite how-to for using the suggested options, a Dev Container or a VM. I think before asking this question, if a person is (demonstrably in this case) into LLMs, it should be reasonable for them to ask an LLM first. The options are already given. It's not difficult to form a prompt that can make a reasonable LLM give a reasonable answer.

There aren't that many ways to run a Dev Container or VM. Everyone is not special and different, just follow the recommended and common security best practices.

My peers are my reviewers...

This is exactly what I would have expected from an expert. Is this not what you are getting?

My broader question is: if someone is asking for instructions for setting up a local agent system, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they should try using an LLM to get instructions? Can't we assume that they are already bought in to the viewpoint that LLMs are useful?