The bigger problem is that data can be part of a migration. A diff is far too rudimentary.
If I split a Fullname into FirstName and LastName, a diff will only tell half of the story. In EF Core, you will adjust an Up and a Down generated method to make the change reversible, plus you deal with data transformation there.
So I would love to know how people handle that without an explicit notion of migrations.
If that would be true, expect in the next decade a frantic search for seclusive grey beards, those who haven't given up their rituals and ancient languages.
If your workforce is vibing all day, they will have no capacity for maintenance, because it isn't their code. So the maintenance that happens will be slop and more spaghetti. I am not saying cases like that never existed before, but such companies will face a moment of truth sooner or later.
Some are more tech savy than others here, but I guess almost anyone can do the following trick successfully:
step 1. visit https://endeavouros.com/
step 2. download iso
step 3. flash iso on medium
step 4. boot medium, installation window shows
step 5. you choose KDE, yes: KDE. Do more mouse clicks.
step 6. system tells you it's done, and offers you to reboot.
almost everyone knows the formula for olvine and quartz, too, of course
theres probably less than 10 people in my entire company that know half of the words you wrote there. whats an "iso"? what is "flashing" the "iso"? how do i "boot medium"? what is "KDE" and why do i want to say yes?
(i know what these are, and maybe most people browsing a tech-focused forum with "hacker" in the name, but the vast majority of people do not)
You are right, I somehow forgot the word "here" after "anyone". I don't expect the average laymen be able to follow these steps, but I have those expectations from the people here.
Which means that this discussion should take place _right here_. That is also a role for moderation to play. It used to be worse though, the fascism is now too much in the face to push it aside, so some of the critical pieces of information are not immediately removed from front page. But HN has a problem with reality and responsibility, I had naively thought the public would be more intellectually honest. Reality will only get more uncomfortable, I think. Authoritarian dynamics will inevitable escalate, crushing dissent or competition, anything goes in this zero sum game. The business part has to think about its political part.
I STILL REMEMBER WHEN SOME MARKETING IDIOT DECIDED THAT VISUAL STUDIO NEEDED TO SHOUT AT YOU. IT TOOK THREE MAJOR VERISONS BEFORE VISUAL STUDIO STOPPED LOOKING LIKE THIS COMMENT. OF COURSE THERE WASN'T A SETTING TO MAKE IT NORMAL AGAIN.
Until they messed up the whole UWP / WinRT developer experience in Visual Studio.
Also VS 2026 was released with a hard milestone, thus while there is a new settings experience, many options show a dialog from VS 2022, because the new UI is still not implemented for the new experience.
Note that most organisations have to pay for Visual Studio licenses, and get rewarded with such quality.
From what I could infer from some community talks, podcasts and so, I would assert that nowadays they have the problem new hires have been educated in UNIX like OSes and Web.
Thus Windows team gets lots of folks that never coded anything for Windows, and management instead of having proper trainings in place, just goes with Webview2 and Electron all over the place.
I might be wrong, this is more my perception than anything else.
I would say the web took over as the primary application platform and Unix-likes provided convenient low cost license-free foundations to build them on.
No excuse for not having trainings in place for Windows native development, for those new hires.
You don't see Apple and Google doing the same Webviews all over the place on their OSes, with exception of ChromeOS, which appears to be on the death row to be replaced with Android anyway.
In fact, at WWDC 2025 Apple executives even spoke publicly on the matter against that approach.
Ah, thanks. That must be the link with Simon Peyton Jones as well. Seems to be another case of a marketing machine running away with foundational research coming from Europe.*
Sorry to hear. Pulling teeth with pliers on-premise has been out of support for a while. Please contact our sales team if you haven't tried our Pliers Copilot 365 For Teams and Dentists offering yet. It solves any problems you might currently experience.
I don't think they would be able to have an LLM withouth the flaws. The problem is that an LLM cannot make a distinction between sense and nonsense in the logical way. If you train an LLM on a lot of sensible material, it will try to reproduce it by matching training material context and prompt context. The system does not work on the basis of logical principles, but it can sound intelligent.
I think LLM producers can improve their models by quite a margin if customers train the LLM for free, meaning: if people correct the LLM, the companies can use the session context + feedback to as training. This enables more convincing responses for finer nuances of context, but it still does not work on logical principles.
LLM interaction with customers might become the real learning phase. This doesn't bode well for players late in the game.
Absolutely. One should just talk with people in the military about procurement. Europe wastes a lot of money and opportunity by having so much duplicated efforts. The innovation and manufacturing power in the EU is absolutely not the problem. But the lack of coordination means that countries inevitably favor local industry, resulting in overly expensive and incompatible systems, with gaps everywhere. There needs to be a central authority that is able to lead a defense program.
Just one example: I am hearing far too often that France is overly protecting their own interests and as such can't reach important deals with Germany about sharing burdens and profits. So it results in duplicated, incompatible systems. Germany is generally more open to share benefits and intel with other countries.
Such deal-making can drag on for decades, to only fall out. For industries to scale, they need long term planning and a guaranteed pipeline of orders.
I am talking about ships, planes, MBT's, air defence, missile tech--not riffles.
It is a shame, because both countries are powerhouses in engineering. Also, this costs EU taxpayers billions of dollars, and perhaps their safety even.
It is totally and obviously untrue that the only way to solve whatever issue of the day is federalisation. Especially regarding desindustrialisation, if you look at what's happening in the world and the development of, say, East Asian and South East Asian countries (or even Europe's own industrialisation), or desindustralisation in the US, this becomes an obviously ridiculous claim.
There is no "need" to for a "central authority to lead defence programs", either. That is a political view to justify integration. Integration is the goal, not a tool to an end and justifications are sought afterwards.
This is a long running campaign of disinformation to manufacture consent and convince people that there is no other way, there is no choice, and we're seeing that dissent is less and less tolerated. Not too long ago being against EU integration was simply an opinion among others, usually seen as being patriotic, now people immediately face accusations of extremism, being "far right", being "Russian shills", you name it, basically it is becoming wrongthink.
Even here on HN, I have been recently accused of being a socketpuppet account, of being effectively a Russian shill (or is it Chinese?), of being an extremist, an idiot, an "alt right troll", my comments expressing a counter-opinion have been flagged... people are losing their minds.
> resulting in overly expensive and incompatible systems
This can occur even with a more integrated market. The problem is that military suppliers deliberately make as many things 'sole source' as possible so they can be the only supplier and hence charge even higher rates. I'm don't mean the big items like tanks and planes, but the little consumable stuff like lubrication oils, fasteners, gears, etc. that are made to be non-compatible with other systems on purpose. Harder to fix because of the usual corporation-military-lobbying feedback loops and because it requires standards which can be technically intensive to develop.
Good point, but sure, I didn't say it would solve all problems with humanity. But at least it would be a giant step forward from the lose-lose situation.
If there is one body on earth that is able to cut with standards and regulation through enterprises, it is the EU I think, so even that is not hopeless. But large capital flows through the mil.industry comes with risks, yes.
Agreed, they do have to start somewhere. I'm not trying to put out the 'if the solution isn't completely perfect, then we should do nothing' type argument. Only that compatibility/interoperability is a much deeper problem that stems from financial incentive not just for military application but civilian ones as well. Just look at printer ink. But the EU did standardize phone chargers, so its possible to some extent.
The EU seems very willing to pass a law to end widespread corporate silliness, at least more than the USA, and it's a breath of fresh air when it happens!
And this is where standardization and regulation should show up. It can start from details like only standardized bolts and screws with standardized heads are allowed to be used all the way to jet engine must have exactly these dimensions and these inputs and outputs in these positions so it is possible to use same jet engine in Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen.
They have this to some degree in NATO, the problem is that you have to allow for some exceptions. For example, a design requires a special bolt head because the standard one just won't work. No standard can be absolute and still allow for innovation. Military suppliers just milk this loop-hole and claim they need an exception even when they don't. Being able to evaluate when an exception is warranted and when the design could be altered to accommodate a standard would require enormous technical oversight.
> It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time,
Exactly. If countries want to be 100% sovereign, they can do a Brexit and enjoy the benefits and the downsides of doing that.
This {$x}exitter bullshit is so tiring. 27 space programs, 12 types of fighter jets etc are horrible expensive. EU-countries enjoy super-high benefits of sharing burdens. In times of might makes right, it gives each a high degree of sovereignty for a steep discount. Yes, being part of a collective does mean that you have to give-and-take with the collective.
It isn't a game of all "benefits for me" in a zero sum game.
quadlets fully depend on systemd doing its work. So, assuming you are running rootless, if you change your quadlets, you will need
systemctl --user daemon-reload
to let systemd ingest the changes. And, if you have configured to start your container on boot, then still you have to start the container by hand, as you typically won't reboot during development. If you have multiple containers, it might be easiest to have them in one pod, so you only need to start the pod.
I agree that the documentation needs a good tutorial to show the complete concept as a starting point. There are multiple ones though on the internet.
The biggest problem with the `systemctl daemon-reload (--user)` workflow to register quadlets with systemd is it hides any generation errors in journald instead of giving immediate feedback. It's a real pain in the ass, and I say this from a place of love.
Quadlets are just a systemd generator: all `daemon-reload` is doing is running `podman-system-generator` which looks at the Quadlet files and turns them into systemd unit files with a big honking `podman run --rm --blah container:tag` as the `ExecStart` property. There's nothing else to it, no daemons or what not
If you ever feel like bothering to give it another shot check journalctl to see if there's any generator errors. Or run the generator directly: on my OpenSUSE box it's at `/usr/lib/systemd/system-generators/podman-system-generator` , Run it with `--dry-run` to just output to stdout and `--user` to get user quadlets.
If I split a Fullname into FirstName and LastName, a diff will only tell half of the story. In EF Core, you will adjust an Up and a Down generated method to make the change reversible, plus you deal with data transformation there.
So I would love to know how people handle that without an explicit notion of migrations.
reply