Golang is one of the only languages with a more or less working library. I built with it and using some hacks got it hooked up to AWS API Gateway with Lambda. Reading the room, the lack of language support does make it pretty suspect in 2026, even if the client support is still pretty good. Recently I have abandoned in favor of AWS Mountpoint (rust S3 mounting) and combined with Lambda object get and list functions have achieved most of the same functionality. The downside being that you lose the ability to talk to the many varied clients like an old HP printer which (obviously) can't use FUSE.
In a circuitous way, you can rather successfully have one agent write a specification and another one execute the code changes. Claude code has a planning mode that lets you work with the model to create a robust specification that can then be executed, asking the sort of leading questions for which it already seems to know it could make an incorrect assumption. I say 'agent' but I'm really just talking about separate model contexts, nothing fancy.
Cursor's planning functionality is very similar and I have found that I can even use "cheap" models like their Composer-1 and get great results in the planning phase, and then turn on Sonnet or Opus to actually produce the plan. 90% of the stuff I need to argue about is during the planning phase, so I save a ton of tokens and rework just making a really good spec.
It turns out that Waterfall was always the correct method, it's just really slow ;)
I wonder if it could still be usurped by another standard that is somehow more popular. If adoption of that leapfrogs over IPV6 then maybe it will have just been a waypoint along the way.
What would a new standard do that would make it more popular? IPv6, for all its faults, is designed to be the last Internet Protocol we will ever need.
In the new standard every publicly routable packet will include a cryptographically signed passport number of the responsible person.
Then the government could, for example, limit criminals' access to the internet by mandating that their packets be dropped on most major ISPs, or at least deprioritised.
Funny enough I actually looked at a scheme for corporate networks where your personal corporate ID is encoded as part of the host bits of the IPv6 packet and policy could be applied based on who you are instead of what machine it is (or both). It was kind of neat but the complexity was too high for it to gain traction, and also it turns out that most corporate networks are allergic to IPv6 and government networks doubly so.
This kind of writing goes deeper than LLM's, and reflects a decline in both reading ability, patience, and attention. Without passing judgement, there are just more people now who benefit from repetition and summarization embedded directly in the article. The reader isn't 'stupid', just burdened.
Indeed, I am coming around in the past few weeks to realization and acceptance that the LLM editorial voice is a benefit to an order of magnitude more hn readers than those (like us) for whom it is ice pick in the nostril stuff.
Having been affected by this personally, I don't think Marriott cares about their brand at this point as they have achieved relative monopoly status. There are plenty of other horrible things they've accomplished in the last few years besides this. It makes me want to watch out for CitizenM similarly, because it's increasingly unclear what Marriott's actual role in your stay even is anymore.
The term monopoly means nothing if Marriott is one.
Not only does Marriott not own 95% of hotels with their brands, but in any given area, you can almost certainly find a competing Hilton/IHG/Choice/Hyatt brand.
It’s about as competitive as a market can get. What you probably are not aware of is a location where half or more hotels of the above brands are owned by the same people, and they franchise all the brands and choose all the prices. But even that is relatively rare.
I took a long road trip this summer and felt like I had plenty of options. My cumulative stays ended up:
1) Hilton
2) IHG
3) Choice
4) camping
5) AirBnB
This holiday season, consider giving the gift of a well-researched gift list, and then letting them decide if they want to buy it or not. Most people don't want more stuff, they just want to know you understand them and care about them.
Azure goes down all the time. On Friday we had an entire regional service down all day. Two weeks ago same thing different region. You only hear about it when it's something everyone uses like the portal, because in general nobody uses Azure unless they're held hostage.
For those of us who have been using AWS for almost 20 years now, I can't imagine why anyone would willingly choose us-east-1 for anything. It is the oldest, highest traffic, most critical path region and is subject to turbulence.
ha! I saw another comment on here talking about how ec2 doesn't need to be held to the same standard as the power company because it's not as important as real infrastructure.
wish I'd already had this link in my back pocket. our industry needs to take its job, as a whole, much more seriously.
“Global” and “edge” services such as IAM, Route53, CloudFront and so on have dependencies on us-east-1, so even if you don’t think you do, you probably do.
> By some logic, that would mean it is the most battle-tested and highest-stakes (and therefore most carefully-managed) choice
As someone who used to work on the inside, us-east-1 has the biggest pile of legacy workarounds for internal AWS issues, it has a variety of legacy API behaviours that don't exist in other regions, and because everyone picks it as the default, it has significantly more pressure on contested resources (i.e. things like spot instance pools).
Plus since it's the default in all the tooling, if you ever decide to go multi-region, you'll find tons of things break right away.
It can make sense to depend on the thing that will attract massive worldwide attention if/when it goes down. Or, more likely, it's just a default people don't change.
reply