dwedge

Obviously "let RDS manage your database" doesn't require egregious read replicas

Of course not, but an easy checkbox, a best practice AWS or terraform guide and someone doing AWS certified X associate makes it easier to happen without anyone ever really discussing it.

The decision to use read replicas or not is completely orthogonal to whether you use RDS to manage them.

Assuming you're talking about letting RDS manage anything, then sure - apart from it being more likely to slip through the net if nobody has to configure them. Database is just an expensive cost nobody necessarily drills into.

However if you mean the decision to let $cloud manage the replicas (and keep the primary managed), that totally depends on the cloud and the options. For example have you ever tried having a primary in GCP Cloud SQL but the replica not in cloud SQL?

To play devils advocate, something that doesn't ship with the database is harder to setup than something that does

At $dayjob we have the same mentality and as a result have a load of managed read replicas that are never used for anything (not reporting, not read only queries, not backups because $cloud handles it) that cost every month. Plus managed database restricts what you can do with the database - sometimes in really annoying ways.

So while I partly agree with you, a lot of companies don't really need HA, read replicas, or even PITR (though I would argue the last one is so trivial and cheap to enable that why not), but they click the expensive check box, and I would argue that companies who do need these features should consider hiring at least a couple of DBAs and get more flexibility instead of the current status quo of everyone being scared of the database and everyone just hoping cloud support will come to their rescue if ever needed

I'm old enough to remember when Twitter was a developer centric platform and were emphatically asking developers to use the API tk create products and help spread it. I then remember them rug pulling those APIs and screwing the devs because it interfered with them shuffling the feed and displaying ads and promoted tweets. That was well before Musk and I refuse to see Jack Dorsey as the good guy of tech he seems desperate to present himself as. Especially after he pretended AI was the reason for laying off half of the Block staff

It's interesting how my opinion of "Jack Dorsey launches X" is a total 180 from a decade ago. He just seems like a well-funded grifter to me.

Often it's the law. I don't trust the EU more than I trust the US or China, but I also cannot transfer data outside of the EU

You don't get to come here and tell other people what is and isn't important to them.

My 3 Pis have destroyed 6 SD cards. One of them also somehow drew too much power when trying to boot and got so hot it burnt me and melted itself but that could have been the power supply. I know the 4s and 5s can blow SD cards if you run them without heatsinks.

What I'm saying is, your anecdotal evidence of two pis doesn't justify saying we did something wrong with the configuration. In my experience raspberry pis still behave like "throwaway devices" but their price tags do not justify it anymore.

I still use stack exchange, or I did until this week. I was looking for help with something and the answers and comments are intersliced with advertisements (albeit internal ones).

It's obvious that LLMs affected their traffic by a huge amount, but making the page flow worse for me was their doing

I struggle with this because the author is lumping FOSS and "tech bros" together as taking the blame for what a handful of large corporations have done, and thinks that our punishment is what those large corps are lobbying for. It seems like an argument that this is a necessary evil to protect the kids - despite admitting that this is not the real reason for the laws - and then says that those of us who care about privacy are either very rare or "mythical".

One thing I miss about the iPod era is that Apple knew they were selling a device to play pirated music

I don't know. iTunes at the time was notorious for deleting all of your library if it thought you didn't buy something through them

Maybe, but it's been widely reported. BBC wrote about it here: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cx2wkwd7e6go

Since that article was published, England had the red card ban for Quansah extended to two games instead of one with no appeal so he couldn't play against Argentina if England were to get that far, and shortly after equalising in the quarter final Switzerland had a red card for a second yellow against Embolo for diving which had originally been given to Argentina. If you don't know, there is no right for VAR to give a yellow card in this case - it can only be done if it's mistaken identity, which is what they claimed. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/12/switzerland...

Now of course none of this is evidence of bias, but it's worth noting that this has been happening after claims of pro-Argentina bias has been widespread enough that the BBC and other institutions wrote about it.

Look, this is HN it's not the typical technical ability or email needs. Just because I wouldn't use this doesn't mean nobody would.

You've made it, try it, maybe people will find enough benefit here to pay you.

I also realised a while ago that most emails are just transactional now (password resets, how well did we do the thing you paid us to do?), so I do similar to you without the sender input and it more or less works. Breaks down like this:

- Nobody gets into my inbox unless whitelisted address. Instead of fighting spam and blacklisting, I know my inbox is always from someone I want to hear from.

- Every other email goes through spam assassin (which is getting worse) and then into a folder called Transactional (and if it makes a mistake, I add to the whitelist)

- I have another folder SpamAssassin where I move spam, and it gets pushed back through sa-learn

- Finally, I have a cronjob that goes through the email in Transaction and looks for subjects, senders, sending domains or to addresses that have a) been received at least 5 times and b) are only in the spam folder.

So kind of the same idea as you. But I think I'd feel really pretentious using this system and assume that quite a lot of people just rolled their eyes and ignored the rejection.

A good AI would calculate refereeing decisions and put Argentina at 100% unless England can pull off a miracle against FIFA today.

This mostly assumes that the only one benefiting from the email exchange in the sender. If that's the case, just close your email account.

A few years ago I emailed a local freelancer I'd met in person, because I had a client asking for coding (which was more his bag than mine). I got an automated response that he was using something like this, with a link to some third party service to fill out a form and click a captcha if I wanted him to see my email.

Why would I? I just told the client sorry, I don't know anyone.

!remindme tomorrow

No. One charger. One cable. One standard.

Except this isn't true. Different power delivery capabilities, different standards. Some can transfer data, some can transfer 4K, some support quick charge, others don't. I love USB C but different cable standards all looking identical is infuriating sometimes

I used to religiously read Percona's blog posts because I considered them an authority on MySQL and worth listening to. They started using LLMs to write the posts and I can't read them anymore

Ironically I just caught myself offloading the thinking about this article to the comment section before I read it

This will never become law in my country(Poland)

I'm sorry to tell you, but if the choice becomes lose EU funding or pass it into law, it will happen.

I quote-replied to your comment, so I doubt it was unrelated.

I never claimed that there wasn't AI slop

No, but you implied that a top tier dev doesn't produce slop when using AI.

If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box

My point was that "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and you're coming very close to begging the question.

bucketing all AI code as the same.

Most people are not "top tier devs" and over time this will probably become more true. Even if I accepted your premise that "top tier devs" only generate solid code bases with AI, the ease of entry and the ease of spitting out thousands of lines of code means the ratio of bad AI to good AI will not go in a good direction unless it becomes too expensive for non "top tier devs" to use. Given this, I think it's fair to assume AI code is low quality until proven otherwise.

I can't find it now but I'm sure I saw some people cutting samsungs in half to get something similar. The only one I could find was this: https://www.pcbway.com/project/shareproject/A_Modified_zFlip...

This is totally not "vaguely modern name-brand" but I've been using the e-ink Mudita Kompakt and it's more or less the same size, but a bit thicker. It's Android but no Google Play Services but probably doesn't tick your box

Is there a correlation between the quality of the manually written code and AI generated code driven by the same dev?

If the dev doesn't vet the code, it doesn't matter how good quality a dev they would be if they wrote the code - they didn't. Sure, the dev would probably drive the initial architecture discussion better and some people are using AI in small batches with tests and vetting everything, but some previously great devs are throwing in PRs that touch hundreds of files at once with one commit.

A lot of people I previously considered great developers have become people I would not recommend for a job in the past 2-3 years.

If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box, then the distinction is unnecessary.

Sure, but this is just begging the question. If nobody could tell, the term 'slop' wouldn't have become so popular.

Sure but these scars/tests are from the original implementation. Just because it doesn't have issues there doesn't mean it didn't bring its own set of issues

I'm actually in this boat right now. I have 2x26TB drives in a 4 base nas (two empty, plus 3x M2 empty) and I'm trying to decide the best way to set them up. I have around 3TB of backups that I care about as backups (but they don't need to be online, just archive backups at this point), and around 5TB of media that can be replaced.

I don't want to lose 26TB just for a mirror, and I have a spare 8TB USB HDD. I'm torn between unraid and just Debian, and I'm torn between just two separate devices and one RAID 1 partition one RAID 0

ThinkCentre M910q

I love these machines. I have 3 of them and an M720Q. Needs changed so only one of each is actually in use, but they are so low profile and quiet that I'm considering deploying the other two at home just in case I ever get the urge to play with K8s or something. The only thing I'm missing is a splitter so I can use one plug socket instead of three - not sure if something like that exists.

One nice little fact about the M910Q is that they are rated to maximum 32GB but I have two of them with 2x32GB no problem. Recent RAM prices and forever regret is the only reason the third one doesn't have the same. The M720Q only takes 32GB though.

You can also run 2 SATA off of the M2, and someone created a 3D printable enclosure for them: https://makerworld.com/en/models/1280680-thinknas-2x-hdd-enc...

The SET implementation reads like a cleaner version of how ProxySQL does the same thing, which is nice to see

Yeah I ruled them out months ago because it was $1, I saw this post and was about to reconsider them and in my case it's the same as it was.