@charity.wtf
cofounder/CTO @honeycombio, co-author of Observability Engineering and Database Reliability Engineering. I test in production and so do you. 🐝🏳️🌈🦄
@hds.cafeReposted by @charity.wtfI've read 3 good blog posts on this topic in the last couple of weeks.
- @bcantrill.bsky.social: bcantrill.dtrace.org/2026/09/05/t...
- @charity.wtf: charity.wtf/p/confession...
- @terriblesoftware.org: terriblesoftware.org/2026/09/10/a...
@charity.wtflol, do our customers actually *want* to be talked at 24x7? I spend most of my time furiously unsubscribing and making other attempts to be unreachable
@charity.wtfokay, that's actually really very funny 🤣
@jcmtyler.bsky.socialReposted by @charity.wtfSaw a great talk about handcrafted code by @charity.wtf at #ldx3ny. This talk needs trigger warnings! If you're someone like me who prefers to write code by hand, this talk will force you to consider some uncomfortable questions about what you're really trying to build and why.
@vought.bsky.socialReposted by @charity.wtfCharity is one of the most clear-thinking people on this question of human interaction and ‘slop’. I’ve been banging this drum at work and no one is listening, but I’ve got precious little patience for humans who ask a machine to convey their thoughts to me.
@charity.wtfCulture eats breakfast for strategy is a variant I had not heard before 🤣
@charity.wtfI love everything @bcantrill.bsky.social writes on this topic, and I had forgotten about that post. Thank you!
@charity.wtfAh, I miss live tweeted recaps from the glory days of tech twitter! Here's a thread of my LDX3 talk, "what handcrafted servers taught us about handcrafted code". Thanks, Heidi!!!
With a hat tip to @chadfowler.com, whose book "Regenerative Software" is now in O'Reilly prerelease.
@theriotnrrd.eurosky.socialReposted by @charity.wtfMy take on workslop: if your job can be done by just copying and pasting slop… why are you here, exactly? Maybe we need an update on the old sysadmin threat of “go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script”; these days, it would be “a very short prompt”.
@charity.wtfYes!
@charity.wtfLmao this is incredible
@charity.wtfThanks Cynthia!!! Means a lot coming from you ☺️
@charity.wtfThank you!! 💕
@charity.wtfand "we" is just you, as far as I can tell.
@charity.wtfI should think everything I've ever written would point in the opposite direction.
@charity.wtfI'm not a purist. I use AI to help me with structure and editing, because I tend to ramble and lose track of the narrative, or pack too many points into one post. But I will not use it to _write_. That feels like a violation, as a writer and as a reader.
@charity.wtfThe final post on this topic comes from @bcantrill.bsky.social, two weeks before Matheus and I got ours together. (Typical Cantrill.) It is called "The revolt of the reader." bcantrill.dtrace.org/2026/09/05/t...
... and now I am on my way to procure a Pangram browser plugin, by hook or by crook.
@charity.wtfHe also points out that adapting to these tools means we must be MUCH more explicit about what we want & expect.
The topic of respecting each other's time (and handling mismatched expectations) is one I discussed at length in our final "AI Norms and Values" post.
@charity.wtfBecause the internet is a hive mind, I have already seen two more excellent pieces today on similar themes.
The first is from @terriblesoftware.org, who makes a similar point: "I have my own Claude. If I'm asking you, i want to know what YOU THINK."
@charity.wtfI wrote a new piece yesterday, called "Confessions of an Unrepentant Slop Snob", about my escalating rage at AI-generated text.
It includes a framework for thinking about when AI involvement is fine -- just another tool -- and when it lands as a violation.
