@argv_minus_one @pikhq

have you seen the size of the thing?

@freya @rain

no it's fuckhuge

https://hails.org/@hailey/117479275107799652

@pikhq

well yes that's obvious; you don't -get- that much code that fast without the connivance of that horseshit.

@r

right. it -doesn't make sense- to not adopt that, especially in a high pressure time constrained situation.

something -isn't right-

and yes, I think they've been suborned by claude because the solution is "way more code" instead of "simplify oom handling in an easy to understand way" and claude has a history of suggesting "create a vast new thing" before any other solution, as claude is a paperclip maximizer for software and it's gotten into everything.

something that's been bothering me about the phpocalypse - which, talking with @rain I was able to put a pin in, after they pointed out what they would do in a similar situation - is that this doesn't feel like a security patch at all.

this feels like a major feature upgrade.

which is weird in the circumstances.

the kind of patch that you would expect to see during a major all hands on deck kind of emergency would be the smallest, least-touch change possible - Rain suggested "abort on OOM" which is a nice sensible solution; sure it hits availability a little but in a way that synergizes nicely with defender goals (denying materiel to an attacker; reducing blast radius to "an instance becomes momentarily unavailable until the service gets restarted")

instead, this has a massive rework of how OOM situations are handled, with a completely new error handling mechanism added and -backported- to other prior versions?

that doesn't smell right at all.

and now a massive patch drops that MUST BE APPLIED NOW - so, intense pressure to comply without careful evaluation?

call me paranoid, sure. but this doesn't fit what I expect to see, and I don't like it, and I am feeling very suspicious that the people making these decisions are having their decisionmaking compromised in some fashion.