May I ask, what is this obsession with targeting the browser? I've also noticed a hatred of k8s here, and while I truly understand it, I'd take the complication of managing infrastructure over frontend fads any day.
This is a site for startups. They have no business running k8s, in fact, many of the lessons learned get passed on from graybeards to the younger generation along those lines. Perhaps I'm wrong! I'd love to talk shop somewhere.
This marketing effort is aimed at shareholders, not customers or employees. The stock has been tanking hard and she's just replicating the strategy of staying in AI related news hoping for a bump. Hopefully it works, for the employees anyway, so they can dump their own shares.
agree - i've had claude one-shot this for me at least 10 times at this point cause i'm too lazy to lug whatever code around. literally made a new one this morning
I agree, however, I've seen first hand how the AI fever and mandate from the top has finally busted enough information silos that previously 'have some DBA write a bunch of reports that answer specific business questions' just wasn't feasible in the first place, and now is.
Yeah, I will say it provides a good excuse to leadership & external stakeholders for fixing technical debt and working cross-functionally! Making infrastructure "AI-ready" and all that.
I imagine more of the benefit of AI will come from companies prioritizing infrastructure and effective organization than from the technology itself.
I think what I'll miss from the SO approach to research is encountering that wall of text someone bothered to post giving a deep explanation of the problem space and potential solutions. Sometimes I just needed the fast answer to some configuration problem, but it was always worth the extra 20-30 minutes to read through and really understand those high effort contributions.
Nobody is writing a wall of text about opnsense rules or unbound checkboxes. I already knew the fundamentals I just wanted to get it done. I'm not a novice I've been using firewalls forever. Xcp-ng for half a decade. I just needed clarification on the differences.
Reminds me of the military. Senior leaders often have no real idea of what is happening on the ground because the information funneled upward doesn't fit into painting a rosy report. The middle officer ranks don't want to know the truth because it impacts their careers. How can executives even hope to lead their organizations this way?
Well the US has lost every military conflict it's entered for the past 70 years. Since there's been no internal pressure to change methodology, maybe the US military doesn't view winning as necessary.
Those past 70 years weren't about winning. It was about making sure the enemies lost more out of it. The US is large and relatively stable and hasn't had to face extended war on its soil since the Civil War 170 years ago. There's no true skin in the game for those who start these wars.
Those might be the only ones? Desert Storm being the one that I'd probably call out, Just Cause was just so small.
One minor win, every major operation being a loss doesn't change the conclusion though imo.
I think it's also instructive to look at each of these operations and note that the two that were won were small, had clear objectives, and were executed quickly to meet those objectives and had no scope creep.
Iraq had one of the largest militaries in the world at the time of Desert Storm. They had tons and tons of arms and equipment and a huge standing army to counter the persistent threat (and/or to provide their own threat) of resumed hostilities with Iran (that war was still pretty recent when Desert Storm took place)
I would agree that the US is notably terrible at occupations and getting involved in civil wars, at least since WWII, but Desert Storm was pretty much an unqualified slam-dunk take-a-victory-lap success against one of the top armies in the world that wasn’t an ally or a nuclear state—carried out on the other side of the planet from the US, to boot. Like I think Iraq was ranked top-10 at the time by many ways of reckoning military strength, and that wasn’t enough to effectively resist the US effort at all, really.
If that war seems small, it’s only possible for it to seem that way from the victor’s perspective, and only because we did such an amazingly good job of totally destroying Iraq’s substantial capacity to fight in a matter of weeks. In terms of deployed and engaged men and materiel it was really big, just fast because it was so very one-sided, and “cheap” in terms of casualties on the US side for the same reason.
You're agreeing with me, or rather I agree with you.
I consider Desert Storm an unqualified victory in an engagement that is in the same conversation as a Vietnam or Korean war, but still not quite to a WW level in scope or complexity.
