Mostly agreed. In a previous life, I used to write code, then got Peter Principled upwards to the point where I "trusted" the engineers under me to do their job. Did I understand all the code my team wrote? Of course not. Even if I wanted to review all the code written by 20+ developers to the point where I could stay I understood it, there simply wasn't enough hours in the day to do so.
I figure what is happening is (human) software engineering as a discipline, at least on large scale projects, is rapidly and irreversibly mutating to software project management. But instead of managing teams of people, you're managing teams of agents. Where I disagree with your comment is in the assertion that everyone "can move one level up the system hierarchy." Some folks can't, so they'll stagnate. Welcome to the Peter Principle World.
This is illogical. I see this everywhere but it is wrong.
If you're developing an agentiv system to build software for you in an automated way using a fleet of agents, you're still an engineer of a technical system even if that system is operating on somewhat fuzzy logic.
Management involves complete delegation and instead the task is to find a capable person for the task and then mostly let them just give feedback so you know whether you hired the right person or whether you need someone else. When you're working with a fleet of agents, you're not assembling a team of heterogeneous workers with different skills, you're hiring the same guy over and over again, hoping that he can do any job and yy same guy I also mean that the guy does not learn anything new over time.
Meaning traditional management skills count for nothing here.
> Even if I wanted to review all the code written by 20+ developers to the point where I could stay I understood it, there simply wasn't enough hours in the day to do so.
The difference of course being that you had 20+ developers who did understand it. With AI generated code no one has that understanding. The AI sure doesn't
> Some folks can't, so they'll stagnate.
And we have no answer for those people. Just "fuck you the world changed and you're being left behind"? Where exactly does that lead?
Elections have consequences. I doubt anyone rational would have thought it would be a useful expenditure of time to get into this particular pissing match, but here we are. Maybe in the next presidential election the 87 million eligible voters who chose not to vote in 2024 might choose to participate.
This would argue that change of ownership of a domain should be treated equivalently to creation of a domain. Of course, given GDPR (or rather how the registrars have chosen to interpret GDPR to reduce their legal liability risk), ownership information is now unavailable, so all you have to go on is the registration modification timestamp. Unfortunate.
Well, the US did get away with blowing up a lot of Iranian stuff, without suffering much physical damage of its own. It destroyed Iran's navy and air force, and killed a lot of top leaders.
You could call that a win, if it weren't for the fact that the US is (apparently) paying 1/3 of a trillion dollars in restitution.
I think you could justify saying that it's a tie, rather than a surrender, if you squint just right.
Combination of CA's climate (mediterranean), which leads to hot/dry summers exacerbated by global warming, natural ecology that evolved to handle that climate and fires (e.g., lodgepole pines can't reproduce unless a fire cracks open pine cones to release seeds into ash beds), the topology that funnels winds off the deserts, and probably most importantly, people, either because of building in places that have lots of fires or because they cause the fires directly or indirectly (transmission lines not buried, lack of control fires, arson, etc.)
Is there a way to quantify how much more of a fire risk California is compared to say Utah (which looks to have about the 4th lowest electric rates (and an abundance of conifers)).
California has 11x the population of Utah, with California having around 250 people per square mile and Utah having 40 people per square mile. This probably plays more into the fire risk than the number of pine trees.
Science? Maybe in an ideal world. However, how science actually gets done has always been at the mercy of social, cultural, institutional, and/or economic pressures.
Congress neutered itself, largely because it has been politically less risky to let the Executive branch do whatever they want, then either cheer it on or rage against it depending on party and what drives donations so congress members can get reelected.
I agree that it's fundamentally broken but I've been around to see it work and watch it fail.
The executive branch obviously is going to wield as much power as it can, but only one party is actually advocating for the executive as king.
So yes, both parties are the same when it comes to the corruption of the party leadership, but there are distinctly different platforms and ideals espoused -- and that difference matters.
"The length limit of a DNS TXT record is 255 characters."
Nope. That's the maximum length of a TXT record string. TXT record strings with the same owner name get concatenated together. The maximum for a TXT record is 65,280 octets (which may or may not translate into characters depending on encoding).
Also, you probably want to think about the implications of caching and TTL.
When you say "get concatenated together" are you perhaps thinking of how multiple SPF records get concatenated by MTA's? Because in ISC dig they are multiple distinct records, which is fine too.
finger nochan.net
"bing bing bong."
"Catching up on HN"
No. It's been a while, but I believe if you use multiple TXTs, resolvers can reorder them as they see fit. For example,
label IN TXT "foo "
IN TXT "bar "
IN TXT "baz"
You can have any number of TXT RRs with a label, allowing up to 65,280 bytes. However, resolvers can reorder those 3 TXT RRs.
If you put the text strings in quotes in a single TXT RR, e.g.:
label IN TXT "foo "
"bar "
"baz"
You'll get "foo bar baz" and each of the strings can be up to 255 bytes. I think (but I'm too lazy to verify) that the maximum length of a concatenated string is implementation dependent.
for i in $(seq 100);do echo -en '0';done
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
test 69s in txt "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
nsd-checkzone nochan.net ./nochan.net.zone
zone nochan.net is ok
nsd-control reload nochan.net
ok
# from my laptop
dig -t txt +short test.nochan.net
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
Still shows up as three quoted strings 100 characters long each but not 300 0's meaning no concatenation at least not when using dig which is what this thread is about.
I figure what is happening is (human) software engineering as a discipline, at least on large scale projects, is rapidly and irreversibly mutating to software project management. But instead of managing teams of people, you're managing teams of agents. Where I disagree with your comment is in the assertion that everyone "can move one level up the system hierarchy." Some folks can't, so they'll stagnate. Welcome to the Peter Principle World.
reply