Sounds like a 9.5" mini rack could help with the stacking, see Geerling.

> And that organization is explicitly nationalistic and religious

So are many Serbs (more so if emigrants from atheist-socialist Yugoslavia, or descendants of folks who moved before WW2) as well as many other nations and organizations (America itself lol). So are many Something-Or-Other-American individuals and communities.

I presume that the organization(s) sending Tesla busts, being American-rooted, have had no illusions about which matters will forever remain impossible to communicate to Americans. (Such as anything not reducible to paperclip optimization.)

Instead, I consider it more likely that the point of promoting Tesla was not to impress anyone in America, but to uplift Serbia and generally the South Slavs of the Balkans who'd only gained national sovereignty in Tesla's day: "look, our heritage has already produced an honest-to-god American inventor half a jebani vek ago, so you guys have zero excuse to act as if you're stuck in the middle ages - do join the cargo cult of mordorn civilization instead, will ya - we got value to extract from ya!"

>They've basically projected the Jobs/Woz divide back onto two historical figures who, in reality, barely interacted.

I'd rather say this has been projected for them, but by whom is anyone's guess; not like there's a shadowy cabal operating. Besides said Serbian-American heritage promoters and whatever their game is, I guess - but here we're not talking mid-XX century Serbian diaspora any more, but a "culturally nonspecific" audience.

Much safer to call it "a hivemind situation" when nobody knows where some idea comes from, and nobody is accountable for rebroadcasting it either, since it comes pre-tagged as Good and True and Useful and it is wrongthink to doubt those. Especially when the idea is so obviously Useful for excusing nonaction. ("I can't be bothered to learn the first thing about electricity, even the history of why I have access to it in the first place - but now that Tesla guy I've vaguely heard of, he was the great genius of the people! What better reason to Experience a Positive Emotion!")

But there is: his neurotype suddenly became considered "whatever mental illness" upon arrival in Eugenicsland.

The one that wasted me hundreds of hours was TypeScript on Node with ESM. The most common, familiar, boring stuff which everyone is intimately familiar with, right?

Got shanghaied into TS-land right around Node 16 when they and TypeScript imposed mutually incompatible handling of ESM modules (that extensions mess).

Not only the type checker fail to understand of the kind of JS I had been shipping (and testing, and documenting, and communicating) up to that point; both the immediate toolchain, and people's whole pattern language around the toolset, were entirely broken as soon as you were doing anything different from the kind of React.js that later became Vercel.

Not only I was able to do 10% of what I was able to do previously conditional on jury-rigging the billion dollar stack to work, I also had a little cadre of happy campers on my ass blatantly gaslighting me that it is all, in fact, working; and suggesting the most inane "solutions" once I'd bent over backwards to demonstrate how there is, indeed, a problem of absurd dimensions, straight outta nowhere.

Later I met more such people. Same people who would insist JS runtimes are not trivially interchangeable, having committed to not examine what they're doing beyond a meager level of abstraction.

I see it as a rather perverse form of "working to spec" (have had to pick up surreal amounts of slack after such characters), but with incentives being what they are you get a cutthroat environment (such as the author of this blog post imagines to be living in), and from a cutthroat environment you get the LLMs eating everyone's breakfasts -- because no matter how yucky a word "synergy" is, synergizin' is that "fake open source" is designed to preclude, throughout the JS ecosystem.

"Fake open source" is how I call MIT/BSD licensed devtools and frameworks from hyperscalers that don't need to do an opencore rugpull because they're a piece of a long-term ecosystem strategy. They benefit from immense decade-long marketing and astroturfing efforts, lending them "default status" in the mindshare; and ultimately serve to carry the vendor's preferred version of reality into unrelated downstream projects. Which is why they often spectacularly fail to respond to the community's needs: they are built to preclude, past a certain point, the empowerment of implementors as a community.

Mastering some of that shit, now there was a sunk cost for me, but in modern JS land all these churning agglomerations play the role of "pay to play" gatekeepers. Considering what that's made the playing field be like, I'm happy pivoting to more niche technology just to keep away from said churning agglomerations.

I'd argue that the mainstream, lowest-common-denominator tools are the ones which waste people's time. (Especially when they're backed by an incumbent. Deno, on the other hand, clicked immediately.)

>you've already consented to a battle.

More like you've already admitted cowardice, which makes you fair game. If it's the music that upsets you, come at me with louder speakers!

>Finally, changes need to be stratified along lines of risk rather than code modularity or other dimensions.

Why don't those other dimensions, and especially the code modularity, already reflect the lines of business risk?

Lemme guess, you cargo culted some "best practices" to offload risk awareness, so now your code is organized in "too big to fail" style and matches your vendor's risk profile instead of yours.

> Why don't those other dimensions, and especially the code modularity, already reflect the lines of business risk?

I guess the answer (if you're really asking seriously) is that previously when code production cost so far outweighed everything else, it made sense to structure everything to optimise efficiency in that dimension.

So if a change was implemented, the developer would deliver it as a functional unit that might cut across several lines of risk (low risk changes like updating some CSS sitting along side higher risk like a database migration, all bundled together). Because this was what made it fastest for the developer to implement the code.

Now if AI is doing it, screw how easy or fast it is to make the change. Deliver it in review chunks.

Was the original method cargo culted? I think most of what we do is cargo culted regardless. Virtually the entire software industry is built that way. So probably.

> when code production cost so far outweighed everything else, it made sense to structure everything to optimise efficiency in that dimension

Oh, for sure. Those people making electro-mechanical computers at the end of the 19th century certainly did that a lot.

You are considering a good-faith environment where GP cares about throughput of the queue.

I think GP is thinking in terms of being incentivized by their environment to demonstrate an image of high personal throughput.

In a dysfunctional organization one is forced to overpromise and underdeliver, which the AI facilitates.