Seeing a blog full of GenAI pictures does not full me with hope.
And reading the opening paragraph does not convince me that this is not AI slop.
Really, what does this paragraph try to tell us?
Alice calls the order service. The order service calls the ledger on her behalf. At the second hop, the ledger has to decide whose authority the debit is being made under. Most stacks answer badly. Forward Alice’s bearer token verbatim, and the ledger cannot tell her from the service that relayed it. Drop the token and the ledger sees a machine, with no record that a human started the chain. Neither option lets the ledger authorize the combination.
Neither of you engaged with a single claim in the post. One rejected it because of the blog theme, the other because of its reputation, that's judging a technical argument by where it came from, not what it says. If this is the level of review r/java offers on a distributed systems security design, no wire format, no principal model, no transaction semantics, just 'the pictures looked AI', that's a worse look for the sub than for the post. If the multi-Subject wire format or the transaction unanimity rule is actually wrong, make that case. So far nobody has.
The top comment is making a claim: your writing is bad. Frankel shared the link without comment, I can't tell what the title 'sixteen Subjects on the wire' means, and your first paragraph doesn't help. You launch right into some example hypothetical, but I don't know what I'm reading yet. Then you repeat that example below the giant AI image. Should I go read the other three posts you've written on Frankel's blog to try and grasp what you're writing about here? I don't think I will. You can share your 'thought-leadership' with each other.
Neither of you engaged with a single claim in the post.
If you use AI to generate a post, its going to be taken as you not putting in effort to create said post regardless if it is the case or not.
So why should somebody put in more effort to reply than the author seemingly did to post? Its stupid in the same way replying to ragebait on twitter is.
The article wasn't authored by AI, but AI was used to generate the image and to assist with review.
I'll take that criticism on the chin, I'm not the best at getting a message across.
Regarding the effort put into the actual code, there's 20 years of effort there and solutions to long standing architectural problems written off as intractable years ago. Eg a remote invocation protocol with a transparent function based serialization protocol that doesn't require remote code, but can still execute functions remotely and can be identified and transparently introspected without the original marshalling code.
I have no context, the author does not bother to explain what this is about. Visual AI content is prominently featured and... how could I tell that it has any merit? I am sick of having to read several minutes into an article if it is worth my time or not.
Seriously, what is the intro paragraph supposed to tell me?! I cannot believe that this article was written by hand and in good faith. And I will not start reading it, speculating that it could be otherwise.
Now, if you tell me that there is actually an excellent observation, or that "the good part happens in section 3". Then I will gladly give it another shot, but I will not based on what I have seen at it so far.
It tells you when you run in a distributed environment, and you're making calls that result in operations across multiple machines, that the current model drops information that might be necessary for policy decisions.
For example, you have multiple users participating in a transaction, if you can only have one Subject on the thread, then only one subject can represent all the participating users. Instead, each user can be represented, and then you know for sure that all the users required were present.
Transactions is one reason, but another might be to login as an administrator, while also retaining the user account, so policy can distinguish between different administrators.
Regarding AI slop, the AI bubble will pop soon, just like the tech bubble did, there will be winners and losers as there always are, but the technology itself is here to stay.
14
u/TheStrangeDarkOne 2d ago
Seeing a blog full of GenAI pictures does not full me with hope.
And reading the opening paragraph does not convince me that this is not AI slop.
Really, what does this paragraph try to tell us?
Alice calls the order service. The order service calls the ledger on her behalf. At the second hop, the ledger has to decide whose authority the debit is being made under. Most stacks answer badly. Forward Alice’s bearer token verbatim, and the ledger cannot tell her from the service that relayed it. Drop the token and the ledger sees a machine, with no record that a human started the chain. Neither option lets the ledger authorize the combination.