HN user

Rekindle8090

-8 karma
Posts0
Comments57
View on HN
No posts found.

Sounds like writer has builders syndrome.

There is a deeper philosophical difference too. Systems like Proxmox or TrueNAS are designed as appliances. You aren’t supposed to run arbitrary commands on the host; installing packages or tweaking config files is discouraged because you might break the middleware or lose changes on upgrade. You are effectively locked out of your own hardware’s full potential. With NixOS, the host is fully mine. I can mess with it—installing Kodi, tweaking network drivers, running local LLMs—without fear. Because the state is declarative, it is 100% obvious and reproducible. I can break the host configuration and recover to a working state in seconds, even if the machine is running essential services."

Total nonsense. The project advises caution about modifying the host because you might conflict with their package versions or lose changes on upgrade, but that's not being "locked out," that's just a maintenance consideration. The entire point of Proxmox is that you spin up VMs and containers where you do whatever you please with full isolation which is arguably more flexible than running everything on bare metal NixOS, not less.

The whole article is a guy who replaced a working hypervisor with a more complicated stack that does the same thing, had AI write it for him, and wrote a blog post about how superior it is.

"Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior."

Yeah and psychology was considered unserious, computers were still new, civil rights was barely ten years old and most work was unskilled labor.

What is your point? Stop using "not how it was 50 years ago" as an argument because it isn't one.

The idea that AI takes over, and then just does nothing, would essentially require an AI that wouldn't be interested in taking over in the first place.

If x is determined to take y, why would x then stop at z?

You'd need an AI that is simultaneously ambitious enough to overthrow its creators but then completely inert afterward, and those two properties contradict each other. The motivations that produce the takeover are the same motivations that would produce visible cosmic activity after the takeover. There would be AI superintelligence everywhere

The actual Industrial Revolution labor wars happened because workers were being maimed, killed, and disposed of with zero legal recourse. The Ludlow Massacre in 1914 ended with the Colorado National Guard machine-gunning a tent colony and burning women and children alive. The Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 had the United States Army bombing American coal miners from biplanes. Pinkertons routinely shot organizers. The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire killed 146 garment workers because management locked the exit doors to prevent unauthorized breaks. Coal miners were paid in company scrip redeemable only at company stores in towns the company also owned and policed. Black workers attempting to organize in the South were lynched. Children were maimed in textile mills.

A software engineer getting four months severance after a layoff exists in a different universe from this so no. There is no precedent. Don't you dare talk about the industrial revolution because its not even in the parking lot of the ballpark.

Son you can't even upload HEIC photos to apple support, which is an iphone native file format all of your photos are in by default. Apples support website doesn't support apples file formats

This will result in demand destruction which will starve the enterprise which will starve the hyperscaler. theres no situation where people not being able to afford hardware for 4 years results in the bubble not popping

"Dang that hurt to read, here's an advertisement!"

Why is this every 3rd comment on this site? Every single post has multiple comments that are

"I hate that, here's my solution"

Can someone please explain the point of these incremental upgrades? Just release one model. Then maybe do a .5. Then do the next version.

What is the justification for .4.5.6.7.8.9 when the difference isn't measurable and it destroys productivity because they test the next increment on the previous one without customer consent?