I hate the idea that it’s considered “tone deaf” to encourage people to adapt to changing conditions. I’m not going to adopt a pessimistic tone and say “yup we’re all fucked, ain’t nothing we can do.” It’s intentionally changing the tone, not being deaf to it.
You just write the code, don't stop to think. You only have to implement the very small set of requests that an apt client can make to an apt server. Probably "get package index" and "get package file".
Like za_creature said you can use a language more towards the YOLO end of the spectrum - more Go or Python or JavaScript than assembly or Rust.
Your commit history shows you had an issue of high background CPU use. You probably wouldn't have it in a manually coded implementation.
>You only have to implement the very small set of requests that an apt client can make
Why even write one of those? Just set up an nginx proxy cache and call it done.
But that doesn't even scratch the surface of what this project does. We already have a few simple approaches to this problem: apt-cacher and apt-cacher-ng. Neither of which were any help when Canonical was under DDoS. Both of which have proven unreliable.
As I said elsewhere, apt-cacher-ultra is a pretty subtle piece of software, it doesn't just do a naive cache, it fully understands the apt repo structure, validates the repo, and snapshots it, understands what packages your clients frequently request and preemptively downloads updates to them as part of the snapshot promotion, etc. A DDoS of the package sources, even in the middle of an upstream releasing updates, is something a-c-u will handle no problem. I've simulated this by firewall rules blocking upstream traffic. It's also proven much more reliable than apt-cacher-ng.
I've been in the software game ~40 years, I've seen it time and time again: "How hard could it be" and then when you get into it you realize there are a lot of devils in the details.
> you can use a language more towards the YOLO end of the spectrum - more Go or Python or JavaScript than assembly or Rust
You might want to change the way you phrase this idea. I think you meant that Go/Python/JS are more "YOLO-friendly languages" (you'll get into far less trouble if you write slop in them). My initial reading was the opposite. It sounded like you were saying the languages themselves are the slapped together garbage.
Assembly is most certainly not "YOLO-friendly", but is more YOLO.
That annoying. Don't have android as my daily driver anymore but for many years the first thing I did was enable developer or debug or whatever (by tapping the build number over and over) so you can disable all system animations to speed things up. And enable the "show touches" feature which I found super useful
Learning to program at an early age because you enjoy it has always been the differentiator.
Even if that child doesn’t have as much raw talent, the desire itself (paired with extra years of experience —- especially when the brain is at its most malleable) will drive success in a way the pursuit of money alone never can.
> I really think the rise of LLMs has demonstrated quite well that most people don't care. Only a minority of us have ever had this desire.
I think people care about the problems they have to handle. Not having to deal with a problem eliminates the incentive of training to fix the problem, because you don't waste time on problems that don't happen.
People also stopped caring about what machine code was generated by compilers. In the past people had to roll out asm to get things to work. Not anymore. With llms it's the same way.
People also use calculators and gas grills and cars. As you point out, a tendency to desire the same outcome for less effort doesn't imply one, or society, does not care for effort. It's about utility and where that effort is spent.
That's a bit self-defeating given people pay to be challenged with video games. A souls game is harder than a lot of leetcode for me and it's not free. That said I'm not seeing anyone offering a causal link between the rise of LLMs and the human preference to less effort for the same outcome (with very important exceptions, see effort paradox).
Guns vs Martial Arts.
There are absolutely benefits to doing martial arts that are not self defense, but when you have to defend yourself in a pinch a gun is pretty helpful.
Idk of the details of that quote, but it does spring to mind that a gun is far better at range than a knife. So, closing that distance could be better than fleeing if your opponent has a gun and there is no cover for you to use while you escape (depending on the weapon and the wielder! I'd take my odds running away from, say, an amateur armed with a flintlock pistol... If it is a trained marksman with a rifle you'd be dead trying to run, whereas, if you are close, trying to close the distance and get control of the gun might - might - work). Increasing the distance between you and a person with a knife is always a smart move.
It’s kind of like how in early aughts everyone was telling their kids to become nurses and now we have a surplus of nurses with absolutely zero bedside manner.
Idk, basically anyone who speaks candidly about this to me says their use of LLMs over the last year has stunted them in some way.
LLMs aren't comparable to anything thats come before, in my opinion. We had much more time to adapt and integrate with original forms of computing, as well as many other technologies from centuries past.
Sure you can use llms responsible and perhaps in a rewarding way (that isnt just related to making money), but very very few people are making that effort or even know how to.
Its more likely people use them irresponsibly like we do cars. Walk half a mile... nah I'll drive. Now we have endemic diabetes.
It's trending down because researchers found a magic pill (well, peptide) that was clinically proven enough to become over-the counter. This trending down started in 2023. 40 years of policy barely did anything (partially because it never fixed the systems, but I digress).
So are we just going to pray in 40 years someone finds a solution to brainrot?
>Dear lord the job market is an absolute disaster right now.
Indeed it is, I don't know and would never like to know the levels of desperation one needs to reach to accept writing Python as a career. (I jest, I jest)
In all seriousness, Python (and the same goes for with Javascript/Typescript) is a popular language that is taught at many bootcamps. I'm sure that has lots to do with the number of applications for these kinds of roles.
That’s a good theory, but we also get ridiculous numbers for C#, design, product management and, at a previous job, Ruby and devops we also got flooded.
Honestly the only language we do that gets a normal amount of candidates is C++, but the team that does it complains about quality too, a lot of CVs from people exaggerating their expertise.
I agree, but I'd like to think these people come from a optimistic point of view.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that the "human in the loop" is exactly the thing the big AI leaders want to cut out as much as possible.
reply