yes. remote exec allows me to attach profilers (e.g. memray) directly into a running process. i'm also excited about the upcoming statistical (cpu) profiler from 3.15
We've been impacted by this. I migrated our services to Python 3.14 so we could attach profilers during runtime.
A couple of services looked like they had a memory leak. Memory was continuously increasing over time. Thanks to Python 3.14, we were able to use memray to understand what was going on. Those services were recreating HTTP clients (aiohttp) for every inbound request, and memory allocated by the downstream SSL lib was growing faster than it was being released.
We ended up rolling back to 3.13, which fixed the issue. I'll try again with 3.14.5.
Cursor can do that well too. Their code review feature usually gives a handful of independent feedbacks. I just trigger agents independently for all of those. Other integrations with Linear and Slack are also very handy to getting into this workflow. Seems like the 3.0 version is aiming at getting better at this use case.
most tasks I can do better and faster with composer 2
a fellow engineer reported a bug on a code I had written a few months back.
I used his report as prompt for composer 2, gpt-5.4-high and claude-4.6-opus-max-thinking.
composer found the issue spot on.
gpt found another possible vector a couple of minutes later, but a way less likely one and one that would eventually self heal (thus not actually reproducing what we observed on production).
claude had barely started when the other two had finished
also, i don't have a budget per se.
but it is expected that i over deliver if i'm over spending
Cursor has been my main AI tool for over a year now.
I've been trying to use Claude Code seriously for over a month, but every time I do it, I get the impression that it would take me less work to do with Cursor.
I'm on the enterprise plan, so it can get pricey. This is why I used to stick mostly to auto mode.
Now Composer 2 has taken over as my default model. It is not as intelligent as OpenAI's or Anthropic's flagship models, but I feel it has as good as or better intuition. With way better pricing. It can get stuck in more complex tasks though.
Being able to get in the loop, stop and instruct or change models makes all the difference. And that is why I've stayed in the editor mode until now. Let's see if 3.0 changes that.
Agreed that you can have real individual ownership. Not only that, I think that is the only way to be really "productive".
But I think that is beside the point.
Individuals are not fungible, but team members are - or at least can be, depending on how you structure your teams.
And as your org grows, you want predictability on a team level. Skipping a bunch of reasoning steps, this means having somewhat fungible team members, to give you redundancy.
The engineering parallel here is the tradeoff between resilience and efficiency. You can make a system more reliable by adding redundancy. You make a system more efficient by removing redundancy.
Yes. See update 2 FTA for a 2019 study on go concurrency bugs. Most go devs that I know consider using higher level synchronization mechanisms the right way to go (pun intended). sync.WaitGroup and errgroup are two common used options.
I wonder how keys are assigned to rows and how the adjudicator is shared.
The author also mentions a leader adjudicator, which means there is probably some sort of coordination to pick a leader.
This raises the question of how a leader is picked, and if leadership changes based on how hot a key is in a given AZ.
This blog series is a great read. Every day Marc drops excellent content and leaves room for questions, which he ends up answering on the following days. Hope more details come next.
> We’ve learned from building and operating large-scale systems for nearly two decades that coordination and locking get in the way of scalability, latency, and reliability for systems of all sizes. In fact, avoiding unnecessary coordination is the fundamental enabler for scaling in distributed systems
I hope there is a follow-up since the points the author only glossed over are important to understanding the architecture and trade-offs. I would like to know about the cross-adjudicator coordination protocol and how the journal works.
From the information available, it seems that DSQL should be pretty fast as long as you keep writes local. Once you add active-active replication and start writing to the same key in different regions the coordination costs should slow the system down significantly (or not - but if that is the case I want to know how they managed to do it).
I grew up finding those glasses the most horrible thing. Even though they were always popular, they became fashionable recently when new sizes were introduced.
I somehow started to find they kind of beautiful when I worked at a company that only had pint-sized American glasses at their office. Now most cups in my house have this design. They are dirty cheap and very easy to replace.
I haven't consumed audio and video from files for a while now. Streaming has become so convenient (partly because of internet prices and availability) that I don't see myself coming back.
Wow, that brings back memories!
foobar2000 was my go to player. I used to spend hours curating all my folders with albums and playlists.
Funny how fast I switched to a streaming platform when they became widely available around here.
I think the change makes sense, even though I have workloads running on the regions that got the steepest price changes. I'd rather have more granular pricing than a blanket increase. The why now also makes sense - there was a technical limitation that doesn't exist anymore.
I was expecting a larger grace period from announcement to price change though.
You got it right when you started charging for stopped volumes - you overcommunicated and gave users estimates for a few months before you started charging.
Smoothing the increase over the next 4 months was nice.
A couple of nits as well:
- AFAIK prices increased in all but two regions. The announcement could be clearer or more direct regarding this.
- The pricing page could have a clearer from/to. I have to click on the example toggle to know how much machines cost before the change.