the execution model of cargo-nextest makes my test suite extremely slow to run - Most of my tests rely on postgres. Since cargo-nextest uses a separate process per test, there is no efficient way to share the connection pool.
Its a bit confusing to claim that "The things your current stack can't give you because it doesn't own the DAG" and use DataBricks as your example: DataBricks includes jobs and pipelines, so it very much owns the DAG, no?
this is not big news in dk, it will be up again soon - i dont know of any mitid services that are life-or-death enough to have people panicing about an hours downtime
Software engineering is not engineering. No need to pretend that it should be. We dont rebuild a bridge 3 times before we get it right, but in SE thats a pretty good approach
Theoretically correct, but worse is better - consider how many things we could have asked of C or javascript before they become standards.. Practically, a spec is something to prioritise alongside all the other things we wish for
Interesting point about db recovery: I guess your db is small enough that you can do multiple full backups without issue? Or do you backup the WAL only?
it is not strange that these systems don’t do incremental compiles? Things are literally paged.. Why does newer systems such as typst do full compiles when a single page is edited? I know that all subsequent pages might be affected, but surely, one could workaround this by allowing sloppy but fast compile options for subsequent pages, that sacrifices correct layout for something decent?
But that doesn’t make much sense - by your account Latex would also be a mix of closed and open source, since closed source web apps exists for writing Latex.
This stack appears to be a solid choice for building generic CRUD applications, regardless of immediate ISO certification needs. Would it be feasible to package this as a ready-to-use solution for greenfield projects that may pursue ISO certification in the future? Which components would still require manual setup, and why?
It's weird that you'd guess (wrong) that I'm an "LLM bull", then start generalizing the actions of this supposed group. Hallucinations are a problem, no news value there. Sabine seems not to be able to get value out of LLMs, and concludes that they aren't useful. The logic is not exactly impressive.
It's a tool. It can be useful, it doesn't always work. Some people claim it's better than it is, some people claim it's worse. This isn't exactly rocket science.
Regardless of the tweet in question, Sabine is a grifter. Her novel takes on academia being some kind of conspiracy of people milking the system, and of physicists not being interested in making new discoveries are nonsensical and only serves to increase her own profile. Look at this video of her trying to convince the world she received an email that apparently proves all her points correct. My BS detector tells me she wrote that email herself, but you be the judge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg