CrLf

Only for a very narrow definition of career.

If you have to ask, it doesn't exist.

I believe we're still needed, because AI has no "want", no intrinsic motivation, therefore no real sense of alignment with real-word goals. Without us humans in the loop, the industry would become self-drinking beer.

Whether or not the folks with the money agree with this is another issue...

It doesn't have to mean abandoning this career. For example, if you used to program because you love the details and the control, doing the same with LLMs and pretend it is still about details and control will make you miserable.

But you might be able to choose to leave that to others, and fill some other role in the development process where you don't have to pretend.

It will still be with LLMs, though.

Grief is exactly what many engineers (not just programmers) are going through right now. They (we) are going through the process of coming to terms with the death of something we loved - not a transformation, but death - and figuring out what comes after that.

This isn't about having trouble adapting to change, because many engineers going through this are adapting just fine as far as others can observe, adopting LLMs, changing the way they work and whatnot.

The grief comes from either that new normal being something they don't identify with anymore, or that new normal being just... different. The former will inevitably prolong the grief, while the latter will eventually result in the grief subsiding (even though some sadness for what was lost will never really disappear).

We're being asked to adapt, but perhaps we should just accept that things are not going back to what they were, look around, and decide not to do the things we used to love in a new way that we cannot love. Others might not even notice we chose that path, and think we just "adapted".

Does this make sense?

I don't see anyone getting offended. People are allowed to disagree and dislike, and argue in a civilized manner, which is what I do see.

You're free to read it as nationalism if you like, although I 'm very far from being nationalist, and I'd prefer if my paper money didn't provide fuel for nationalism.

The European project has worked all these years because it stands on the idea that we are all europeans with shared values, but also different countries with our own cultures. We are all the same yet different. The Euro banknotes (even though the Euro and the EU aren't the same thing) should represent that, not look like some specific nation's currency, which is what faces (any face no matter the personality) evokes.

PS: Perhaps paradoxically, the faces on Euro coins are a good idea (I like having my wallet populated with coins from different countries), for the same reason they're a bad idea on notes.

Your last question is something to consider in the current context of rising nationalism, which is all about the perception of being left out (even in the larger countries, where that perception is about each other).

I'm europeist (but no longer a federationist after the cooperation debacle that was the eurocrisis) and I have no issue with the choice of personalities.

I do have an issue with anything that might be interpreted as the proposals of some countries having had more weight that others.

There's a reason why the current Euro banknotes represent bridges that do not exist in the real world.

It's not a matter of protesting (nor is it a matter of nationalism).

It's a matter of bureocrats remembering that there are more countries in the eurozone than banknotes, and even if that wasn't the case, their denominations can be read as hierarchy.

Faces on Euro banknotes are a terrible idea. Even internationally well-known personalities are associated with certain countries, and you do not put things that represent specific countries on banknotes used in different countries.

The EU isn't a federation, and having a single currency doesn't make the eurozone any more so.

The buildings aren't as bad, being european insitution headquarters. However, as they aren't necessarily widely recognizable, they come out a bit self serving.

When CGNAT is present, my guess is that's the case. It would be nice to see a study on that; don't know if there is one already.

Users doing speed tests in CGNAT may be seeing numbers that aren't exactly real for a (still) mostly IPv4 Internet.

That's not exactly true, they've been increasing in the last few months and are close to 30% now. Let's hope they don't revert it like one year ago.

This graph even shows them doing step deployments:

https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage/as2860?dateR...

I don't expect any ISP to do IPv6 today and deploy routers with a flow label bug... Those types of bugs no longer go unnoticed.

IPv6-only ISPs might hit other issues, though. They have to bridge to IPv4 somewhere.

Most of what people see as "SELinux" is actually the default policy, which started out as way too strict. Then SELinux-enabled distros such as Red Hat moved to a policy that only applies to system services, and leaves user-launched binaries as if SELinux was disabled.

And even for system services, you can disable SELinux for one service (permissive mode) and leave it enabled for the rest.

This has been the case for more than 10 years, but the damage was done. It's now very hard for users even considering learning the basics (which are not hard).

Cloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between.

https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6

But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, the fraction of IPv6 flowing on the public Internet might be much lower.

I wonder what incentives are needed to push this forward, because it's not the same incentives as years ago for sure. We've long since exhausted new IPv4 allocations.

UX issue, and UX issues are often downplayed by engineers, leading to adoption failures.

Another such example is SELinux, which would have prevented so many vulnerabilities from being exploited, but whose poor UX also caused everyone to disable it at install time.

SELinux's UX was significantly improved many years later, but already too late to change ingrained opinions. There are a lot of ingrained opinions about IPv6 too.

There are maybe many buggy routers still out there that reset the IPv6 flow label field when they shouldn't, breaking hash-based load-balancers (the symptom is TCP connections spontaneously reset).

IIRC, a workaround was to prevent Linux from setting this field, or force-reset it on every outbound packet using netfilter.

Nothing to worry about. They don't need to learn anything anyway. Anything they would do in the future will be done by agentic AI, and generative AI will produce all the content they could possibly consume. They will be free to spend all day on their phones.

You may want to look into the ideologies of European political parties that have "socialist" in their names, instead of relying on definitions from the Soviet revolution.

Socialism in Europe is social democracy. The only difference between "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe is how fractionally close to the right or left side of the center line they are.

Perhaps it's important to point out that socialism != communism.

I think this is something the US really doesn't understand about Europe.

Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).

In fact, US capitalism is much closer to communism regarding societal outcomes (social injustice, power concentration) than European socialism. It is very much possible to be anti-capitalist and anti-communist at the same time .

Maybe submitting PRs with code that wasn't even run is the problem, not IDE features?

I was enjoying The Expanse until the Marco Inaros arc started. From that point onwards the show felt rushed, mostly repeating the formula of so many other shows, and sidestepped all the alien bits that could have been interesting.

I much preferred BSG, even though it had plenty of boring "west wing in space" episodes.

Because in Europe religion is either less prevalent (in some countries) or something people don't usually talk about (other countries).

Being overt about religion is uncommon, and most religious people are non-practicing.

It's true that there is a lack of simplified documentation. But that lack is also the result of the folks that would otherwise contribute to such documentation not even giving SELinux a chance.

Many years ago I decided to face the Bogeyman and went from knowing very little about SELinux to writing a policy from scratch in about a month. The policy is simple enough (but realistic) that it might help in the absence of a guide:

https://github.com/carlosefr/kyoto/tree/master/selinux

I used it as an example in a couple of talks, whose slides might also provide additional context:

https://github.com/carlosefr/public-talks/blob/master/presen...

SELinux suffers from a reputation problem. It gained that reputation early on, while default policies were still very immature and overly restrictive.

One crucial change for the better was leaving third-party software in a permissive state. From that point onwards, disabling SELinux is cargo-cult sysadmin'ing.

SELinux is not hard if you understand its basic principles. But no one bothers, because SELinux is the bogeyman.

Yes, writing policies means getting knee-deep in macros, and it's hard because many services try to access anything and everything. But almost no one needs to write a policy.

At most you need to tell SELinux that some non-default directory should have some label. That's not hard.

I think you fail to understand the concept of sovereignty.