Always good to challenge the narrative - but I don't pay for RDS Postgres because of the WAL, replication, all the beauty of pg etc. I pay RDS because it's largely set and forget. I am gladly paying AWS to think about it for me. I think at a certain scale, this is a really good tradeoff. At the very beginning it could be overkill, and at the top end obviously its unsuitable - but for most of us those tradeoffs are why it's successful.

You can use stuff like Litestream to continuously back up your SQLite DB to a cheap storage bucket. It's practically set and forget too.

(disclosure: I wrote this)

more throughput WITHOUT huge tail latency is my understanding. A user above posted this link https://lwn.net/Articles/994322/ which goes into the background. My mental model is "give the kernel more explicit information" and it will be able to make better decisions

I've speculated about this myself, but haven't heard anyone actually discuss it or reveal/leak this is the case. Do you have a source for this?

I implement them.

`peon --pack peasant`

This was my first thought too, thankfully they thought of it!

This was a very bitter pill to swallow! It took me more than one mistake to learn this - "you are not the user".

Not OP, but I think that without some creative impetus like 'agency', how useful is an AGI going to be?

If cars do not have agency how useful are they going to be. If the Internet does not have agency how useful is going to be. if fire has no agency (debatable) how useful is going be.

I agree. I'm imagining a large software team with hundreds of tickets "ready to be worked on" might support this workflow - but even then, surely you're going to start running into unnecessary conflicts.

The max Claude instances I've run is 2 because beyond that, I'm - as you say - unable to actually determine the next best course during the processing time. I could spend the entire day planning / designing prompts - and perhaps that will be the most efficient software development practise in the future. And/or perhaps there it is a sign I'm doing insufficient design up front.

The privatisation of the commons will endure as our generations' greatest folly. I look at the Australian NBN as a great example of a project that is not economical for a private business to entertain - it requires "The Government" to build. How do we reason with this in the capitalist system?

> The privatisation of the commons will endure as our generations' greatest folly

Things really went downhill after 1773 (first Inclosure Act)

Respectfully, I don't think that piece adds anything of material substance. It's a list of hollow platitudes (vapid writing listing inactionable truisms).

A better resource is likely Michael Nygard's book, "Release It!". It has practical advice about many issues in this outage. For example, it appears the circuit breaker and bulkhead patterns were underused here.

Excerpt: https://www.infoq.com/articles/release-it-five-am/