Yeah, I'm working on a communications platform as a side-project, architecturally providing reliable communications is exceedingly difficult to self-host.
* Mobile calls are another form of push notification, Apple/iOS requires setting up APNS and Google/Android requires FCM, there is no self-hosted option for that at all and, for battery life reasons, no independent replacement is supported. Genuine ownership / independence from the main project requires, iirc, basically compiling from source to register different IDs against APNS/FCM.
* Nobody supports high availability for the underlying calls. All of the available solutions (including LiveKit) depend on stateful services that, at best, place ceilings on call lifetimes (e.g. 5 hours) to allow for graceful draining, but "calls" in Discord-style settings where people connect to a room and stay connected will easily outlast those ceilings. Not supporting high-availability, IMO, is a huge ask for self-hosters - the price isn't in the maintenance window itself, but in deferring updates until the maintenance window, which can leave you vulnerable, particularly if you decide to leave the firewall open to ingress from 0.0.0.0/0 for ease of use. And of course, as a self-hoster, you rarely have a full follow-the-sun ops team, so either you schedule maintenance when everybody else is off (and you should be off too) or when everybody is on (and it's disruptive).
You're right, but idTech is almost by definition that "novelty" kind of engine. And it did help id to sell more games. It's just apparently not enough.
This is not an argument that founders should seed 25k EUR to cover liability, it's an argument that GmbH bank account amounts should be visible publicly. If I want to put in a catering order, the catering business does not need 25k EUR to cover liability. If I want to build a data center, 25k EUR is not nearly enough.
> Surely having these guarantees for some packages beats having it for none?
> You can just define that option in your own configuration
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Once you have Nix on your system, it infects everything. You want to let it control everything, because that is where its power is. Your life would be so much easier if you could let it control even more, like the stuff you share with your team. It's the siren call. And then you find yourself pitching it to your team, and then you inevitably fail to pitch it, because you ramped up to it over months and it's just impossible to get anybody else ramped up to Nix that quickly.
It's guaranteed heartbreak every time and I got sick of it.
> You can just silently use it and enjoy the convenience for the declarative parts of your setup, with no detriment to your ability to run the imperative, ad-hoc setup scripts that your company requires.
That's the kicker though. Nix's benefits come from the guarantees it can make based on its integration with the rest of the Nix-controlled ecosystem. Without the control, you don't get the guarantees, and you lose the raison d'être. You need to actively avoid the "value-added" parts (e.g. package options) because latest Homebrew upstream may give you a version that exposes an option that is not yet exposed by the package options, and you can't patch the package with Nix because you're not using a Nix-based package.
Chezmoi is declarative. The templates give me generated configuration. I can rollback anytime I want by reverting Git commits and calling chezmoi apply. It works well within its less-ambitious goals (compared to Nix).
I ran NixOS for a while, before I switched to Apple Silicon, so I consider myself fairly well-versed-enough (although nowhere near an expert) in Nix and the Nix ecosystem. My last four jobs have all issued me MacBook Pros; the last three with Apple Silicon.
Ultimately, my workplace setup is what has the most gravity. And the most I can get most workplaces to standardize on is Homebrew for package management of off-the-shelf software. Nix is so far outside of the wheelhouse for most engineers that I can't even propose it. It would be too much of a distraction for too many people for too long that it's just not seen as worth it and it's not worth spending the political capital on the attempt. Employers would literally prefer to run scripts from a whitewashing, barely-auditable Jenkins instance with parameterized jobs than to attempt to figure out how to distribute portable scripts and get everyone's permissions working.
So I need to pick software that will cooperate with other tools in an unstable fashion, rather than software that attempts to fully and exclusively control the environment to provide guarantees. Chezmoi fits. Nix and home-manager do not.
Necessary qualifier: for browser-based user sessions.
Plenty of good uses for JWTs for service-to-service communication.
edit: I read some of the linked stuff, e.g. https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/03/jwt-json-web-tokens-is-ba... . Please, if JWTs are such a horrifically insecure standard, go ahead and publish your means for hacking AWS STS's AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity , or don't publish and just exploit it by launching cryptominers in every Fortune 500 production AWS account. Let me know when you inevitably succeed, because JWTs are so insecure, right? /sarcasm
> many people who’d consider a VPS would happily slap a .env with an unencrypted secret then ssh to update
I just want to point out that you can totally still do this with Kubernetes. Of course it's not correct, but you can save that unencrypted secret in a .env file right into your container while you're building it - no need to use Kubernetes's support for supplying environment variables from the manifest. And of course, you don't even need a Dockerfile to build that container - you can just exec into a running container, paste it in, and then docker save.
Kubernetes doesn't save you from making stupid decisions, it just makes it easier to make better ones.
To give you just a little more context than other commenters -
You answer truthfully when you're interviewing from a position of power. Either you're already employed somewhere and you're taking your time exploring your options to see if maybe you can end up somewhere a little better, or you're an employer with applicants lined out the door and you want to winnow them down to the best match. In either case, you don't care too deeply if an individual interview sucks, you just move on.
Truth is always the first casualty of war. And when someone is out of work and fighting for their ~life~ livelihood, or a founder is trying to convince the first customer or the first engineer to take a risk on them so that they can get their baby off the ground, the truth dies real quickly.
The author specifically called out the Meta outage, as if he was offering a prescription ("It's easy to configure systems with tools like Ansible or pyinfra at scale") that would have prevented Meta (at Meta's scale) from suffering an outage. The argument that Meta should not have used DNS except that Meta runs at a scale where DNS is necessary... who comes up with these arguments?
It replaces DNS's pull-based architecture (contact a DNS server to get the IP address) with a push-based one (push the IP addresses to each /etc/hosts file).
Suggesting that a push-based, Ansible-based architecture will scale to hundreds of thousands of targets, with such pushes happening hundreds if not thousands of times a day, is a junior-level idea at best, dark comedy if I'm being charitable, and professional malpractice at worst.
Drugs cost pennies to manufacture after they are researched and make their way through the approval pipeline. There are many generic drug manufacturers who can work off the existing formulas.
The more apt comparison is that LLMs won't be un-trained. Opus 4.8 now exists. Even if Anthropic somehow went bankrupt, that particular asset could, at the very least, be sold for proverbial pennies on the dollar to a "generic" inference provider.
> Concentrated ownership of the wealthy is not synonymous with “the public.”
I 100% agree. It's terrible that large private companies like Cargill and any others large enough to make this list: https://www.forbes.com/lists/top-private-companies/ are allowed to continue operating without being forced to list on stock markets and being subject to public reporting requirements. There's a very big difference between concentrated ownership by the wealthy and public ownership.
> You are very literally arguing for plutocracy over democracy
You can only assume that public markets results in plutocracy if individual investors hold outsize amounts of outstanding shares. The elections for Boards of Directors are not competitive when an individual shareholder holds majority voting power. There is a separate argument for a wealth tax that I agree with, and there are arguments to be made for maximum share prices (reaching the maximum triggers an automatic stock split) to guarantee financial accessibility (cough, BRK.A, cough).
The public should own more than half. Via the stock market. Where public shareholders can vote in elections to control the Board of Directors, and elect Directors that act in the fiduciary interests of shareholders, and return excess capital to shareholders by issuing dividends. Where any member of the public can decide to buy or sell shares, being the most important development in the democratization of wealth development in all of human history, second only to the index fund that let members of the public put wealth development on autopilot?
When did public ownership mean that the government needed to be the owner? And when did we start to allow companies to float so few shares that public shareholder voting rights became largely meaningless?
The issue I have with these pieces is that AI will not affect the whole economy evenly. The disruptions come in bursts and fits: first digital artists were disrupted (e.g. Adobe Firefly), then junior engineering roles were disrupted, currently "measurer" roles (to quote Matthew Prince's piece on Cloudflare layoffs) are being disrupted, and it's rather foreseeable that occupations like lawyers and accountants are also at risk. But the key is that the disruption is not happening all at once. And that's a key fact because political disruption doesn't happen when a relative few people are laid off (like coal miners and factory workers were) but when a relative majority of people are hungry.
For such doomsdayer opinions to be correct, we'd see it in massive unemployment figures. US unemployment sitting at 4.3% does not bear that out. Finland and Spain are currently at >10+% unemployment. US youth unemployment may be at 9.5%, but British and Chinese youth unemployment are higher than 16%.
Is there some Finnish, Spanish, British, Chinese civil unrest that I'm not seeing in my media outlets?
> But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose?
This is bizarre. When you agree to take a $100k base salary, you don't get all $100k on the first day; your salary is split into pay periods, and if you leave earlier (voluntary or not) then you don't get the rest of the year's salary by default (severance aside).
I'll agree with you that RSUs for public companies should not have cliffs. But the idea that you agree to a large amount of compensation up-front (so that re-negotiation is infrequent) which is then paid out in portions on a regular basis is very standard, for both cash and equity.
I don't think this is actually anything new. In large-enough companies, even before AI, it was and is quite common for executives to lose touch with base reality. I don't think anyone is under any delusion that people like Mark Zuckerberg intimately know the entirety of their corporate codebases. Everything is filtered through layers and layers of middle management whose summaries, cherry-picked statistics, and perpetually up-and-to-the-right graphs make it difficult to have an objectively informed opinion. Companies would, are, and will have mass layoffs that unintentionally (or, intentionally but with indifference to the consequences) fire key engineers whose loss results in "familiarity debt" within the systems those engineers owned.
Calling this "psychosis" is maybe a neologism but it's apt in perspective.
All that's actually new with "AI psychosis" is an acceleration of that phenomenon. The agents will summarize status faster than any middle manager. Claude will happily draw you any "up-and-to-the-right" graph you please, with the most common contemporary examples being "tokens burned" and "lines of code written". And vibe coding doesn't even require paying the cost of a mass layoff to get the "familiarity debt".
There have always been both good and bad engineering leaders. No tool will magically make a bad leader into a good leader overnight. There is nothing new under the sun.
* Mobile calls are another form of push notification, Apple/iOS requires setting up APNS and Google/Android requires FCM, there is no self-hosted option for that at all and, for battery life reasons, no independent replacement is supported. Genuine ownership / independence from the main project requires, iirc, basically compiling from source to register different IDs against APNS/FCM.
* Nobody supports high availability for the underlying calls. All of the available solutions (including LiveKit) depend on stateful services that, at best, place ceilings on call lifetimes (e.g. 5 hours) to allow for graceful draining, but "calls" in Discord-style settings where people connect to a room and stay connected will easily outlast those ceilings. Not supporting high-availability, IMO, is a huge ask for self-hosters - the price isn't in the maintenance window itself, but in deferring updates until the maintenance window, which can leave you vulnerable, particularly if you decide to leave the firewall open to ingress from 0.0.0.0/0 for ease of use. And of course, as a self-hoster, you rarely have a full follow-the-sun ops team, so either you schedule maintenance when everybody else is off (and you should be off too) or when everybody is on (and it's disruptive).