Hetzner is almost exclusively offering consumer-grade hardware.

Arguably, this situation is already broken right now. If an organization can't be bothered to use their tools (Sharepoint and the wider O365 ecosystem) correctly, it's entirely on them.

Organization employees use tools in a way that is practical for them. In microsoft case, it often means "incorrectly" and that is on Microsoft too.

That's what I feel. Whenever I see someone writing something to the effect of “LLMs will replace X” (where X could be literally anything including software developers) I get an intense urge to write something against it. Not something nice, mind you.

I also find takes from the anti-LLM to be exceedingly dumb at times. Oh this text has this and that, it must have been written by LLM and thus is not worth even considering.

Unfortunately, they often lack what we gained over the last decades. Namely navigating with a mouse and being self-explanatory and same-y.

The latter is mostly because certain GUI patterns simply cannot be implemented with a TUI.

And then everyone has their own idea of what keyboard shortcuts should be like. Yuck

IMHO peak GUI was in 2000s - on Windows most app used Win32 API and apps which followed "Microsoft Windows User Experience" guide had consistent UI/UX. Since then Microsoft introduced many competing frameworks to create GUI all look slightly different and UX is less consistent too. And then Electron come which brought inconsistency of web to the desktop apps.

That is very rose-tinted view of the era. In reality in early 00s lots of software had their own wacky UI toolkits. MS Office is of course the most notable example, but also iirc all of Adobe/Macromedia or every 3d modeling (Lightwave, Maya etc) and audio production software. In the enterprise realm people were doing Java AWT (and later Swing) UIs. And then there were the classics like WinAmp with its iconic theme support, or Mozilla with XUL (and themes).

>Unfortunately, they often lack what we gained over the last decades. Namely navigating with a mouse

For those workflows (as opposed, to say, Photoshop), we could do without that. That's the whole benefit.

>and being self-explanatory and same-y.

GUIs are quite less same-y that TUI. Not to mention the same app GUI can be widely different between 2010 and 2026, whereas any TUIs from 1990s I still use look and work the same.

Extremely unlikely. Automating Office (the desktop application suite) simply does not scale. It's not needed, either. Libraries exist that can extract information from Office documents (both legacy and OOXML) much faster. Many(!) orders of magnitude faster, in fact.

AI is entirely unrelated. This is simply yet another push to get more SaaS subscribers.

> Frontend projects are very repetitive.

I’m sorry, what? This is such a shit take, I don’t even know where to start. What’s repetitive about them? That all UIs contain buttons or what?

If this is something that people actually believe, I can understand why UX has went to shit and then got even worse since the 90s.

Frontend developer here, frontend projects are incredibly repetitive. It is still wild to me that a complete set of UI controls that you can customize isn't native to all browsers. I can't count how many sortable / filterable tables I've implemented. I would much rather 99% of web UIs I work on that are essentially a series of forms be automated away to work on much more interesting things.

Listen, frontend developer, there's this thing called "npm", you should look that up.

Recommended for people who like the horror genre.

Yes, it can be sniffed. It will at least use transport encryption, like TLS. For everything, yes. So you'll only get encrypted data you cannot read. You could attempt a Man-in-the-middle attack on this connection. Unless the app is badly made, this will not succeed.

And then, even if you could look inside, there's another type of asymmetric cryptography going on: the remote attestation itself. Again, if properly designed and possibly backed by a hardware security chip, it cannot be spoofed. This isn't something trivial like a shared secret in an HTTP header.

Taking this as a good faith engineering argument. What does that mean? What do you constitute a pollutant and how much is zero?

I guess as a contrived example your breath releases 40k PPM Co2. Have you tried aiming for no pollution?

The reality is we make things which involve pollutants, which we create laws to govern the safe disposal of. Engineers optimise for these constraints the same way you do. You wouldn’t have one k8s pod per request to ‘strive to keep the response times as low as possible’.

In all of human history nobody has ever had a glass of water with literally no arsenic in it, there are trace amounts in every lake, river, and well. Even the ultra-purified water used in bleeding edge semiconductor fabrication has a lot more than 1 atom of arsenic per glass. In the far future humanity might obtain the technology to create water with literally no pollutants in it but that age has yet to arrive.

How would you do that, assuming you wanted to keep up the material standard of living that the people you care about are used to?

I assume you hold yourself to that same standard?

Your car, heating, toilet and soap and all the rest release zero pollution, right?

Um, I'm pretty sure we can all get behind corps striving for the ideal. Fines align incentives.

Are you actually suggesting that we rely on the good will of a for profit corp? When has that ever worked?

GP suggests that it's fine if it's not forbidden yet. My (sarcastic) suggestion is that it is not, because corporations never act in good faith.

To exist is to pollute.

But you can pollute sustainably. e.g.: Composting, biodegradable materials, etc.

or unsustainably: e.g.: PFAS. For bonus points you can do internal research and hide the reports detailing the effects accurately.

On my iPad Pro from 2017, none of the videos even play. Not sure what's better!

> I feel like I'm in a different field compared to the rest of hacker news.

That should be my line. My new employer does not use LLMs at all. Software development, marketing, hardware development, nothing. Maybe too little, but whatever.

The problems the company is facing are entirely unrelated to "throughput".

There's not, sorry. I can only advice you look outside the "tech sector" (FAANG and the smaller wannabes).

As implied, my employer's product is not software, but rather hardware. This hardware does of course run firmware and software and needs to interface with other systems. It's entirely B2B. All this combined makes work relatively relaxed.