What a shame I didn't discover this sooner -- I finally sent my 11-year-old TrueNAS system[1] through the one-way Linux door about a year ago because I gave up on any hope that something like this would come along and I didn't see another way to keep it current.

The migration path went smoothly but I preferred the FreeBSD setup if only because it forced me to do something a bit more interesting in my spare time. I do quite a lot of Linux work in my day job and it was nice to occasionally work on something that was surface-level similar but subtly and not-so-subtly different.

[1] Over 11 years I have replaced every component (even the CPU/motherboard) at least once except for the case. Migrating from MBR to UEFI was "fun".

FreeBSD with ZFS tends to be less chaotic once setup. Linux distro in storage appliances can be hit or miss, but ZFS/F2FS/CephFS for /home and ext4+Overlayfs for OS / are reliable these days.

Usually, for JBOD file archiving people want to avoid cutting-edge anything. Sometimes Linux kernel less-popular fs updates add or remove data-corrupting fringe filesystem bugs and features. People usually discover this on their own after the first SSD/HDD starts to wear-out, upgrade breaks compatibility, and the solution is re-install/copy-over everything.

Accordingly, I was surprised people now deploy btrfs on linux / for some distro, as your options when things go awry was limited at one time. Would be cool if it was finally production ready, and actually reliable on degraded hardware.

Too late for me, started my own mini vanity NAS/automated-testing project last year with a few built in features similar to https://guacamole.apache.org and Proxmox. If the OS build stops sucking over winter break, than I may share the build-script someplace for people to pull off parts they find useful, and a USB-bootable portable rtx GPU image for test-drive/recovery scenarios. =3

It's worth mentioning that last time I checked encrypted ZFS was not considered production due to obscure file corruption bugs that were unpatched.

This was a while ago so it may have changed but then changes can introduce new bugs...

Part of the problem is replicating fs bugs that take months/years to occur is nearly impossible... people still sell USB to SAS/SATA adapters that cause large file corruption in hardware too.

ZFS does have bit-rot checksum detection/repair, but the encrypted file feature was a bit of a YOLO feature for awhile. Not sure where it is at these days, as ddr5 ram prices skew away most of ZFS best key features. =3

Bigger issue was that native encryption doesn’t (didn’t?) have a maintainer, so even though most bugs got fixed, it’s not a great thing to build on. Some of the key storage is also a bit outdated.

IMO use LUKS unless you really need the features of ZFS native enc.

The NAS of Theseus

It's not just a patent fee, IC-card support takes special hardware that enables the low latency of the transaction. Only Android phones sold in Japan (including Pixels) get it installed at manufacturing.

All Pixels have the hardware, it's only activated on Japan-based skus. You can root and change the sku to the japanese model and it works. Allegedly the Pixel 11 is only the US sku and the international sku, so all international 11s should have it activated unless they do some serious shenanigans.

Oh, Matthias Wandel, of course. This would have been back when he was writing software for Blackberry instead of his current semi-retired woodworking YouTubing

Yes, top hats were one (but not the only) use of beaver fur

The step that a lot of people leave out is the revising: it is worth the human hours to go over the outputs of AI for this kind of thing with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it is usable, readable, accurate, etc.

I would then have to wonder if all the time saved in the first place at all. I have heard anecdotes of verifying AI output to be more time-consuming and generally even more painful/stressful than doing the whole work yourself perhaps.

As an employee, I would prefer to not be stressed and as an employer, I would prefer to not additionally stress my employee on all times so that I can have them use the stress for the works which truly matter the most (which is a limited resource as an employee shouldn't be burnt out or shouldn't be given unlimited stress)

Also its probably the ethical thing to do but even rational logic dictates so in my honest opinion (not sure how much of it works exactly on documentation stuff though*)

> I would then have to wonder if all the time saved in the first place at all.

From my experiences using AI to write documentation, if your bar is high quality documentation, yes, you do save time, but it's on the order of a 1.5-2x efficiency boost, not 10x. The AI basically saves me one draft iteration and saves me the trouble of creating charts by hand, and that's substantial, but I still need to take a fine toothed comb to the output.

The biggest issue I run into is that AI is good at the tone to address an intended audience but is not good at framing and structuring the information for said audience.

If US backed NGOs were distributing life saving medications (e.g. for HIV-AIDS via PEPFAR, to give only one example) and then that distribution was withdrawn, causing recipients to die because they could no longer access medication, what other conclusion should we draw?

Probably not. As you point out, it's a typesetting tool like LaTeX, not a page layout tool.

You could probably write a template that does the right thing, but that's true of LaTeX as well.

For the sake of completeness, the Four Colour Theorem was proved with the aid of a computer in 1976, although there were, er, quibbles with the original published result not finally put to bed until 1989. It was the first major theorem to be proved with computer assistance (Appel and Haken broke the theorem down to ~1400 configurations that were all computer verified).

For certain values of "reality". It doesn't take a financial analysis to tell you that it is bananas that Tesla (~1.3T) is worth more than four times as much as Toyota (280B), and yet.

But there's no law that says prices must be based on standard financial analysis.

You and I and a million other people might run away from Tesla's valuation but that doesn't mean that the market must.

I think it's very obvious that the historical norms that governed and explained pricing in the stock market no longer apply, for better or worse. Between the massive manipulation of the markets by central banks to the rise of the retail investor (and social media, meme stocks, etc.), there are a lot of factors in play that weren't a thing 30 years ago.

People grossly undervalued the IPOs of Amazon and Microsoft.

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” -- Carl Sagan

The problem is, as an investor, you don't know whether you're looking at a genius or a clown when dealing with these types of powerful trends.

Markets allow people to bet on it. So one would assume the author is taking the revenue from his $70/year subscriptions and shorting the bubble he sees (or at least positioning himself to do so).

Bitcoin has a 1.5T market cap with 0 revenue. I think Musk really got his eyes opened when he started playing with Dogecoin a few years ago. He applied the lessons successfully with Tesla, making the company an empty shell PR vehicle to support the TSLA "token".

I bet you could build a fully off-grid DC that didn't guzzle water for less money than launching a rocket today, and there would be thousands of people lining up down the block to sell you more than enough land to do it a thousand times for cheap. This just isn't happening yet because it is still quite possible to build on-grid DCs supplied with fresh water for cooling despite what some people would have you believe.

And then when you build on the ground you could even send people to it to swap hard drives and GPUs when they inevitably fail or upgrade them to keep them current. At lower rates of failure than they would in space because we have a planetary magnetosphere protecting us from cosmic rays.