Having gone down the worktree rabbit hole for a month or so, I am giving up in favor of multiple checkouts to enable many agents to work across many repos.
Worktrees worked great for me when my agents' work was mostly contained to a single repo (they got me to finally hitting rate limits, not that that was a goal). As my homelab scales, agents increasingly work across multiple repos, and that's where (my approach to) worktrees broke down; agents were spawned in a repo worktree and so avoided stepping on the toes of other agents in the same repo without any special instruction, but as soon as they needed to touch another repo, they would default to working in that repo directly, without a worktree, and thus collide with other agents, and muddy a merge process that expected the main repo clone to be clean (which turns out to have been an unnecessary design quirk, but resolving it would still not stop agents from stepping on each other's toes in secondary repos).
After a detour through ZFS dataset clones and some mounting magic that made /srv/src/ appear to be a distinct hierarchy for each agent process, I am simplifying even further and giving each agent a bare directory (sth like /srv/dev/<slug>/) where they can check out any repos they want. The git remote (/srv/git/) becomes the only integration point.
Maybe I should just bite the bullet and move into containers, but performant as they are the ergonomics still bum me out.
Edit: I may actually hold on to ZFS datasets with mounting magic. It does add a bit of complexity to dev tools, but it also reduces path-based trust bloat in harness configs, provides some interesting zfs features (zfs diff, etc)... And it's done.
Here's the thing: life also imitates art. If you invert your load-bearing assumption, it could be that he just reads too much slop. But my honest take? You might be right.
While admittedly contested and only reproduced by a few labs outside Gerald Pollack's at University of Washington, there is a solid case that it could play a role in transporting water and sap to the tops of trees. At least, it's involved in the motion induced in hydrophilic tubes when there is sufficient ambient radiant energy (uv/infrared).
Schurr, J.M. (2013). Phenomena associated with gel–water interfaces: analyses and alternatives to the long-range ordered water hypothesis. J. Phys. Chem. B, 117(25), 7653–7674. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp302589y
Elton, D.C., Spencer, P.D., Riches, J.D. & Williams, E.D. (2020). Exclusion zone phenomena in water — a critical review of experimental findings and theories. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 21(14), 5041. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145041 (open access; the most thorough critical review)
Elton, D.C. & Spencer, P.D. (2021). Pathological water science — four examples and what they have in common. In Water in Biomechanical and Related Systems (Biologically-Inspired Systems, vol. 17), pp. 155–170. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67227-0_8 (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.07287)
I regretably didnt save it but there was a truly hilarious topic on usenet sci.physics long long ago. If we've gathered enough evidence against something or if the thing goes against accepted consensus you are forbidden from doing further research and new evidence is no longer allowed. The topic then invited others to list such topics. The list grew to hundreds of entries and people couldnt resist getting angry reading their personal trigger words despite there being many more silly things on it.
Be careful with that dismissal. The concept of an exclusion zone itself appears to be legitimate. More generally, there's lots of strange and surprising effects that crop up on the molecular level at interfaces in solution. However not all mechanistic explanations for such behavior are shall we say "widely accepted".
And then there's homeopathy which is a largely unrelated and entirely nonsensical thing.
> And then there's homeopathy which is a largely unrelated and entirely nonsensical thing.
And be careful with that dismissal! Not that I'm helping my case, here, but Pollack doesn't think it's baloney (see related chapter in his book "The Fourth Phase of Water").
While there is plenty of evidence of strange molecular phenomena occurring at interfaces in solution, there is to the best of my knowledge absolutely no evidence to support the claims made by homeopathy. Moreover the latter appear patently unreasonable at a glance (and only become increasingly so when examined with a critical eye) while the former fall well within the bounds of established chemistry and physics.
I didnt believe any of it but when conventional methods failed the homeopathy worked incredibly well. So, i dont get to mock it. The same guy also gave me other alternative medication. I had to pull it out of him as he innitally refused for legal reasons.
So, i make of it that alternative medicine and homeopathy doesnt work because you may not talk about it(!?)
Or as Brian Josephson put it, The idea that water can have a memory can be readily disproved by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments
By itself rsync.net doesn't support S3. The one I wrote (Filestash) lets you use rsync.net as a downstream storage and proxies it through the S3 protocol.
Get a microscope and help me explore the role of structured water in rouleaux formation.
Rouleaux formations are clumps of red blood cells, and they're bad because 90% of our circulatory system is < 1 cell wide, so clumps cannot pass. Hematological literature of past 50 years is a bit of a mess regarding mechanisms, seemingly has not considered structured water because it's recent and looks a little fringe. Structured water is known to be disrupted by WiFi, so if a clearer connection can be made between structured water and rouleaux, it could offer the simplest and most encompassing explanation for biological harm from EMF; would also make the benefits of sauna, red light therapy, grounding/earthing, and other practices more legible.
> it could offer the simplest and most encompassing explanation for biological harm from EMF
Frankly this is a bit of a red flag for me in terms of scientific rigour. It sounds like you want the conclusion to be true, or you already believe it to be true, that EMFs are harmful, and you are searching for ways to justify it. Careful with confirmation bias.
> would also make the benefits of sauna, red light therapy, grounding/earthing, and other practices more legible
This is also a bit suspect. These treatments don't seem to have much in common and it's unclear how they may affect the phenomenon you are discussing. Coincidentally they also tend to be some of the go-to treatments for a myriad unscientific wellness practices.
And I'm not sure how you plan to observe the molecular structure of water with a basic microscope. I suppose that trying to induce Rouleaux formations by exposing red blood cells to WiFi is worth a try of course, but it would be very strange if such a basic thing hadn't been observed already by the scientific community.
>It sounds like you want the conclusion to be true, or you already believe it to be true, that EMFs are harmful, and
Wouldn't it be more accurate to hypothesize for a start, that man-made EMFs are likely to be harmful than safe. We co-existed with nature for eons and our bodies will be tuned to deal with the 'natural' EMFs, magnetic fields etc. Anything that is not 'natural' has to be viewed with more suspicion than something natural. Note that I'm not claiming that everything natural is good and everything 'artificial' is bad. Also the distinction between natural/artificial can be blurred.
Yeah okay... Surprised to see this as the top comment.
> Hexagonal water, also known as gel water, structured water, cluster water,[1] H3O2 or H3O2 is a term used in a marketing scam[2][3] that claims the ability to create a certain configuration of water that is better for the body.[4]
> The concept of hexagonal water clashes with several established scientific ideas. Although water clusters have been observed experimentally, they have a very short lifetime: the hydrogen bonds are continually breaking and reforming at timescales shorter than 200 femtoseconds.[7] This contradicts the hexagonal water model's claim that the particular structure of water consumed is the same structure used by the body.
Though funnily enough, you can make real 'structured water' at home in your freezer. Making your ice crystals hexagonal is theoretically possible, but it's really, really hard to grow monocrystaline water ice. That might be a really interesting niche hobby, though.
A so-called fourth phase of water (liquid, but with some crystalline organization) that grows on hydrophilic surfaces by absorbing ultraviolet and infrared light, and organizes into a honeycomb-like lattice similar to ice, but lacking the H+ binding layers to make it rigid. It has higher viscosity than bulk water, and a net-negative charge.
Yes, it's a relatively recent concept (decades) pursued mostly by Gerald Pollack at University of Washington and not widely replicated, though there is some replication that has prompted critical review (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7404113/). It's also downstream of work by Albert Szent-Györgyi (Nobel prize for vitamin C) and Gilbert Ling. And, of course, there are a bunch of folks Pollack distances himself from commercializing the concept.
If I had a coloring book for every person who cited wikipedia as a reliable source on cutting-edge science... I'd have Christmas presents for a bunch of people I don't know!
they did not use RAG for these tests... how are we supposed to take the report seriously when it does not demonstrate even a cursory understanding of nature of LLMs?
If the claim these folks make is "time spent struggling through a default config on an unfamiliar machine" > "time saved by crafting an workshop to fit your mind", then we are not the same.
(Probably, the dividing line here is time spent coding vs time spent managing infra.)
Worktrees worked great for me when my agents' work was mostly contained to a single repo (they got me to finally hitting rate limits, not that that was a goal). As my homelab scales, agents increasingly work across multiple repos, and that's where (my approach to) worktrees broke down; agents were spawned in a repo worktree and so avoided stepping on the toes of other agents in the same repo without any special instruction, but as soon as they needed to touch another repo, they would default to working in that repo directly, without a worktree, and thus collide with other agents, and muddy a merge process that expected the main repo clone to be clean (which turns out to have been an unnecessary design quirk, but resolving it would still not stop agents from stepping on each other's toes in secondary repos).
After a detour through ZFS dataset clones and some mounting magic that made /srv/src/ appear to be a distinct hierarchy for each agent process, I am simplifying even further and giving each agent a bare directory (sth like /srv/dev/<slug>/) where they can check out any repos they want. The git remote (/srv/git/) becomes the only integration point.
Maybe I should just bite the bullet and move into containers, but performant as they are the ergonomics still bum me out.
Edit: I may actually hold on to ZFS datasets with mounting magic. It does add a bit of complexity to dev tools, but it also reduces path-based trust bloat in harness configs, provides some interesting zfs features (zfs diff, etc)... And it's done.