this is one of the core conceits behind why Strong Towns / Not Just Bikes / urbanism discourse in general makes the disctinction between a "street", which is meant for people to walk along, go to stores/restaurants/etc, and "roads", which are meant to efficiently move traffic from one part of the city to another.

Combining them degrades the ability to address either point: efficiently moving traffic is inherently in conflict with being able to access businesses or having pedestrians nearby.

I'm not OP, but; Forgejo is much lighterweight than Gitlab for my usecase, and was cited as a more maintained version of Gitea, but that's just anecdote from my brain and I don't have sources, so take that with a truckload of salt.

I'd had a gitea instance before and it was appealing insofar as having the ability to mirror from or to a public repo, it had docker container registry capability, it ties into oauth, etc; I'm sure gitlab has much/all of that too, but forgejo's tiny, tiny footprint was very appealing for my resource-constrained selfhosted environment.

> clueless suggesting Gitlab

ad hominem isn't a very convincing argument, and as someone who also enjoys forgejo it doesn't make me feel good to see as the justification for another recommender.

> Households have shared computers.

I have about five Fedora desktops running in my house that I share with my partners. Domain-style logins are handled by FreeIPA. Basic login with the KDE Fedora spin works great.

I've been meaning to set up auto-mounting network shares and such, but haven't gotten around to it; but the login management is very convenient and we use every day.

This is really exciting! Discussions of our resource impact have come up a lot in my org's informal spaces, it's really exciting to see someone making a concerted effort to raise visibility into how much we spend in money or energy in what seem like benign actions.

I really like the emphasis you place that reducing environmental impact is reducing cost as well. Tying civic mindedness to pragmatism is essential in dollar-hungry spaces.

I appreciate the love. Yea, that was the cool thing during the research - if we reduce from a large to a medium, it both saves money and reduces carbon. Win - Win! Company can save money at the same time as reducing the environmental impact.

> Now the ones to avoid move around and it's all too likely that a newcomer is such a person.

This seems a wild generalization to make, though I guess "be suspicious of newcomers" is a little biologically hardwired. What's your epistemology for believing "newcomers" are "the ones to avoid"?

The problem is the bad guys move around a lot more than the good guys.

That's not an explanation, that's a restatement of the claim.

Inferring, an LLM

It's not just juniors. One of my partners carries a PhD in epidemiology and bimolecular science; they've been job searching for eight months with no bites, just silence. A friend of mine is a chemical engineering PhD, she's been searching for a year and just had her first interview.

I have eight years of software engineering experience but am only one rung up from the bottom of our SWE ladder, and we don't even hire the bottom rung anymore at my org. Seems like there's crushing pressure from above to limit hiring at every stage.

Who else is going to run the models?

The CTO, obviously.

another model

> the notion that it lacks nuance to describe the intricacies of text rendering

I took this to mean that any non-domain-specific language may be bad at describing that domain, e.g. why physicists, mathematicians, chemists, etc. have a common symbology for the discipline, or why programming languages exist. i.e., not so much that English is uniquely bad among written human language for conveying these topics, but just that any non-specialized language may be.

Though, I think the author did a fair job, but I lack the domain experience to guess at where the misconceptions might lie.

I had much the same conclusions. The author did a perfectly good job of explaining the issues.