My latest post on control theory and feedback loops has just been published. I’ll start from scratch and gradually build up feedback loops that are self-healing and resilient, capable of scaling thousands of databases.
Check it out: https://t.co/khsqPD8WmT
I'm continuing to look for a fully remote, full-time backend role. Senior backend, Go and Elixir/Erlang/OTP.
I build distributed systems: Kubernetes, observability, databases, and large-scale telecom platforms.
My timezone is GMT+5, but a 3–4 hour time difference works great for me.
DMs are open and RTs, as always, are hugely appreciated.
From time to time I get emails with questions related to Linux and linux-insides. Recently, more and more often I get the same question:
Why am I still spending time and efforts on this, considering that one can just ask an llm and get a fast answer?
Ehhh... I will try to answer it here once, so I can refer to it next time.
I started writing linux-insides many years ago. LLMs did not exist yet. I was curious. I was deeply interested in how things work. I wanted to know. For me, it was never only about getting an answer. It was not like this back then, and it is not like this now.
I am an engineer. I like to read source code. I like to write source code. I like trying to understand the author's way of thinking, getting confused, trying again, and finally having this feeling "hey, now I see what it means".
I do not fully understand recent claims like "writing code manually does not make sense anymore" or "the era of humans writing code is over". For me it is not over. I like to write code manually. I like to read code myself. I still have a lot of fun doing it.
An LLM is a great tool. It has simplified my professional life a lot. Yes, it can answer a question. It can write code faster than me, and sometimes better than me. Probably it can also explain things better than me. But it does not discourage me from doing what I like to do.
The point is not only to get the answer. The point is to learn, to go deeper, to slowly make things clear for yourself, and of course enjoy the process.
Have fun doing what you like to do. Do not let anyone convince you that your curiosity is obsolete.
ParadeDB is hiring a distributed systems engineer to come build our ParadeDB Cloud with us. This is a high-impact role that could lead our entire platform initiative. More details here:
https://t.co/qHOEUq3Vnq
Decades of industry knowledge taught is that less code is better and removing is encouraged. Coding agents seem to do the opposite. We should have one that stops producing the code, convincing PMs/engineers they don’t need a particular feature
I’ve just released MiMo V2.5-Coder. If you have 128 GB of RAM, this is one of the best models you can run locally. It’s fast, and in all my experiments it outperformed Qwen 3.6 and DeepSeek 4-Flash. https://t.co/U6mL65YVR1
I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and its impossible to have rational conversations about it with them. I can't name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out.
I lived through the great MTBF vs MTTR (mean-time-between-failure vs. mean-time-to-recovery) reckoning of infrastructure during the transition to cloud and cloud automation. All those arguments are rearing their ugly heads again but now its... the whole software development industry (maybe the whole world, really).
It's frightening, because the psychosis folks operate under an almost absolute "MTTR is all you need" mentality: "its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" We learned in infrastructure that MTTR is great but you can't yeet resilient systems entirely.
The main issue is I don't even know how to bring this up to people I know personally, because bringing this topic up leads to immediately dismissals like "no no, it has full test coverage" or "bug reports are going down" or something, which just don't paint the whole picture.
We already learned this lesson once in infrastructure: you can automate yourself into a very resilient catastrophe machine. Systems can appear healthy by local metrics while globally becoming incomprehensible. Bug reports can go down while latent risk explodes. Test coverage can rise while semantic understanding falls. Changes happens so fast that nobody notices the underlying architecture decaying.
I worry.
I’m considering my next career step and would be happy to hear about interesting remote backend/infra roles.
My background is mostly in Elixir/Erlang/OTP, distributed backend systems, Kubernetes, observability, and telecom/AAA platforms.
I’m especially interested in technically strong teams working on infrastructure, observability, databases, Kubernetes, or distributed systems. I’m based in GMT+5 and open to working with teams across compatible time zones.
If your team is hiring for something similar, feel free to DM me or point me to the right person.
@arpit_bhayani Re: cross-timezone. From my experience, most of the time it is a planning problem and organizational (ownership) problem. If it is a feature plan accordingly, allow for delay. Critical fixes should be paged/alerted as such thus bringing clarity.
@kellabyte I am following the HoloStore story all the way and I must say you are doing an incredible job! Thanks for your effort. It gives an energy to do research and learn from what you are doing! I thought of building something like ClickHouse but eliminating the need for HouseKeeper