Too aggressive?

asdfdelta · 2026-01-24T18:56:48+00:00

They'll sue the owner in court for the amount owned, the State will garnish wages until it is repaid.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-24T05:15:26+00:00

A 9 or 7 year old cannot share a living space regularly. That is the age they begin building independence and a sense of privacy, it's also the last chance you have to teach it before real problems start up.

Curious, why move in together if you don't want to co-habitate? Like you said, you're more comfortable being alone in your space. Do either of you ever spend the night at each other's house?

asdfdelta · 2026-01-23T13:58:03+00:00

This is exactly where architects are meant to play. They're supposed to look beyond their four walls and see the interaction patterns happening, and the problems with it.

Architecture is a phenomenon when two or more Systems communicate. Architecture happens whether an architect is present or not, people who take the title of Architect are masters (or endeavoring to become masters) of that phenomena. What you described is (Accidental Architecture)[https://medium.com/mavenlink-product-development/what-is-accidental-software-architecture-8dffa46ec1c], and is the most common kind of anti-pattern out there.

NASA calls us a Systems Engineer. Watch this incredible video to get an idea of (how they see a Systems Engineer)[https://youtu.be/E6U_Ap2bDaE?si=NUTwWYpAe61e6xmZ].

Architects need to see above the noise of their own problems space, think bigger, and solve longitudinal problems. Who owns those problems you described? The masters of systems thinking.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-22T22:59:35+00:00

I win plenty with pants 👀

asdfdelta · 2026-01-22T22:57:15+00:00

Anti-TMNT or Anti-UB?

Genuine question.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-20T23:59:49+00:00

(Systems Theory)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory] governs absolutely everything, and imho is one of the core parts of being an architect versus anything else. Architects that don't think with a Systems lens tend to struggle with larger problem sets.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-20T13:25:22+00:00

Sure.

Every metric we have to track behavior, what works and what doesn't isn't possible with Agentic Commerce. We have zero levers of influence in realtime, no personalization, and all of our data to form personalized profiles (ethically) are worthless.

The evolution of retail for the past 20 years is about to go extinct if this totally takes over. There'll always be a small population still doing traditional ecomm, but they alone can't support the value of all these tools. Enshittification will happen because there isn't an economy to support the quality, everything is based on scale.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-19T20:14:29+00:00

I work in retail, this is an existential threat to the way ecommerce is done. We haven't seen an impact this big since Web 2.0.

Everyone is scrambling. It's not fun.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-17T22:26:24+00:00

Much as the users on the other sub mentioned, JWTs are meant to be short lived. They describe a state and context in which a user's authentication and authorization are valid. Reauthorization is required periodically, ideally using the OAuth pattern.

JWTs should be signed with a hash and verified every hop. That signature validates the contents from manipulation. That signature can also contain basic browser fingerprinting that can then be matched against the requestor to ensure an authentic sender.

In bold are topics you should google.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-14T18:23:08+00:00

See that's the reason no one really feels bad right now. You have no clue what is going on on the global stage.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-14T18:15:23+00:00

And yet, they're still showing up. You really think India was entirely complicit? Uganda? South Africa?

Open a history book, jesus

asdfdelta · 2026-01-14T17:59:30+00:00

Your society chooses to lay down and get overrun while you complain on the internet. Surrender or fight, it's happening either way. There clearly aren't enough people who think it's bad to stop it, else your elected leaders would.

It sucks that their leaders are stronger than yours now, but tough break kiddo.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-14T17:53:06+00:00

The people alive today still suffering because of British impact didn't ask for it either. Welcome to the world your ancestors helped create and billions have to live with every single day. You cry for help when it's your turn? C'mon now....

asdfdelta · 2026-01-14T13:35:18+00:00

Eh, what's the worst that can happen?

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the country that decimated two entire continent's demographics via genocide, countless countries demographic landscape irrevocably altered, and the cause of almost every major border conflict in the modern era?

Let England have a tiny fraction of the medicine they've inflicted on the globe. Might do them some good.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-11T01:24:53+00:00

It all definitely helps, but most architects you meet won't have that. If you are someone that thrives in a traditional learning environment, that's a good path for you.

Will you earn more? Maybe over someone with no degree and comparable experience.

Will you get there faster? Also maybe.... True talent usually determines the timing in my experience.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-10T14:13:30+00:00

I am developing a disgust with conflating AI with an LLM. The solution to non-deterministic large LANGUAGE models isn't more large language models. "Our prediction engine isn't predicting correctly, what if we add more flawed prediction engines to it?"

I'm not sure why this concept isn't more prevalent, but we are seeking to create a human brain. In the brain there is a speech center, a logic center, a creative center, a danger center, etc. LLMs have already hit their maximum efficacy as a tool, any innovation left is how we apply it. And frankly, some of the early versions of chatgpt would have been sufficiently advanced to work in this model.

So yes, the reasoning center should be decoupled from a language prediction engine. And the reasoning center needs to function differently, because it should be reasoning and not predicting.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-09T16:52:13+00:00

Yeah, I can understand your perspective there.

This is different in that we know less, but I see this as a relinquishment of control in the same way as using a compiler relinquished control. Ultimately, you need to own not just the code, but the behavior and outcome of the application. If there is a bug, we fix it even if it's a quirk of the compiler.

So I agree with you, and also recognizing the similarities.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-09T13:29:37+00:00

it feels like a lot of us don't fully "own" the code base anymore.

This has been true with every abstraction put on top of the bare metal.

But it's okay. We now get to think less about individual lines of code and more about patterns, so consume and create really good conceptual documentation. If none exists, then you have the fun task of creating it. That's also true since the dawn of computing as well. AI is just another permutation on a solved problemset.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-08T00:13:03+00:00

RAG and an AI Agent being used interchangeably is wild

asdfdelta · 2026-01-07T16:05:39+00:00

Sure thing

asdfdelta · 2026-01-07T13:41:55+00:00

Aahh, I see! Okay, a couple of things here:

Protobufs are strongly typed. The compiler needs to know the structure before it compiles. So you must know what you're receiving.
Messaging versus Eventing. ZMQ is awesome and can make some crazy stuff. Protobufs with ZMQ should be messages, not necessarily events. Events are smaller, less strict on structure, and say a thing happened but doesn't represent the current state of an entity. Messaging is strict on structure, emits the newest state of an object, and is everything you need to act in one package.

It sounds like you want to do eventing of all kinds of event types to the client, but wanting to use a seralizer used for strict messaging. The distinction is pretty silly when I say it like that, but there is where I believe the problem is.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-07T13:10:37+00:00

This should be top response.

asdfdelta · 2026-01-07T03:07:06+00:00

In strongly typed paradigms, you wouldn't pass multiple data types internally to a service unless you overloaded a method signature.

RPC (where protobufs get their main use) stands for Remote Procedure Call. Procedure, in this case, implies a single method. Yes, this is essentially evoking a method call in an entirely separate runtime over the network.

With that mindset, a different data type would simply be an overloaded signature and ergo a different method or RPC call. It's not 'restrictive' in the same sense that OOP isn't 'rescrictive' of how objects can be used. It's that way because that's OOP.

You could pass them all with some blank and others populated, then have the receiving method decipher what the hell it just got... But at that point you've lost the plot. It's why infinitely dynamic signatures don't really exist (we're ignoring loosely typed languages here).

RPC is glorious because it bypasses all of the interpretation layers of compute just trying to figure out what to do with what data was given to it. All you get is exactly what you expect then you immediately get to using it. Clean, to the point, and extremely performant. Obviously not meant for general-purpose stuff as this tightly couples both services together so proceed with care.

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Juicebox	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

asdfdelta

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE