The link goes to a project update post in a forum thread. The first post introduces the project.

Could they be talking about power factor? Still doesn't make sense anyway.

you only get 3 guesses

Unfortunately trunas core is dead now.

zVault is a fork that is effortless to migrate in-place, but pointless because it has had no updates since the fork, it's no different from just continuing to run the derelict final version of truenas core.

That just leaves xigmanas which I have not tried yet, but looks like a simpler more pure nas without the jails or vm manager, which people have told me can be filled by bastille.

Or really, I'm thinking rather than even xigmanas it probably makes more sense to just use plain freebsd and never get stuck like this again.

The host is stuck at 13.3. 13.3 went fully EOL December 2024. The pkg repos don't even supply packages for that any more. I have a bunch of services that run in jails, and currently I can just barely squeak by by "illegally" updating the jails to 13.5. It's not officially supported by upstream freebsd but I seem to be getting away with it for now. But even 13.5 is not going to last much longer. Then what?

So really the FreeNAS ui was nice an all, but not so nice as to be worth being stuck like this now. I probably should have just skipped it and just used plain freebsd which would never have had any such problem.

So maybe assuming zvault continues to not update when I finally need to move some jail past 13.5, maybe the next move is not even to xigmanas but just plain freebsd.

"A vibe-coded tool can sometimes do the job"

How do you know it ever does the job?

I don't know either for most code that I use, but I do have reason to trust that the author does know. I don't really trust any code itself, only the people and processes (organizational, not computer) that generated it.

I have no reason to trust that ai generated code is doing the correct thing. I know enough about the way code works to know that merely observing it seem to work in a test case means absolutely nothing at all. Multiply that zero by a million more test cases and it's the same zero.

The only thing I trust is that someone actually understood a problem they were trying to solve, and cares about avoiding edge cases, and tries to develop logic to make unintended outcomes impossible etc...

It's not possible for an ai to do any of that regardless what the prompts are. But what they can do is emit stuff that some person once wrote which did exhibit these qualities, and so looks ok, and causes idiots to think they found the cheat code to life, and worse, foist that shit off on everyone else.

My mom does not have my awareness that any of this is going on. She's just out there in the world running into this crap blindly as an unwitting end-user who has no idea how badly she's being served these days when she uses basically any app or service. Thanks for that vibe coders of the world.

> How do you know it ever does the job?

Because the part of the job it automates is simple, and can be tested. I cannot overstate how simple the tools I am thinking of are. Think tipping calculator. Neither new nor creative nor complex. The real value here is being familiar with the problem.

You are missing the point here. I am talking about people who were not served at all by software developers. The alternative is not craftsmanship, but at best duct taping wordpress plugins together.

In any other context when someone tries to demand the impossible from me, I just say "you show me how to do it". But all the time politicians prestidigitate directives without any clue how it might be actually done. It's like that guy that tried to decree that pi=3.

The irony is that the pi == 3 argument comes from failing to read correctly/follow directions accurately for 1 Kings 7:23 --- the ratio of 3 to the diameter is for the _inner_ circumference --- when one includes the thickness of the wall, then it comes out to 3.14 which is a workable approximation.

Not only the source, but the specific repoprting has been refuted already by others.

So you have failed to present an argument, and then continued to fail to support it. So all you have done is express an opinion. Those are fine and allowed, but of no significance to anyone else.

They said exactly that they do not think these are double bad.

They are presenting them as examples of things that a lot of people do say, and many laws are written this way, and many cops, prosecutors, & judges treat them as double bad.

It's not interesting because it's not representative. Pair this with some stat that shows it happens the same way most of the time and then it's interesting.

It is representative because people died.

People die everywhere, at all times, doing everything. "people died" does not make an event interesting.

"People lived" during the same event. In fact even more people lived. Was that interesting?

If you lost someone, you might feel differently. And the people that lived that day, almost most certainly don't want to die like that.

That's the problem with those style of arguments. As logical as you want them to be, it doesn't remove the trauma burned into the psyche of the people who lived that day.

If you deny someone's humanity in your argument, you've lost.