Breaking production on purpose
Chaos engineering has the most lurid name in software and the most conservative temperament. If recovery is a capability, this is how you find out whether you actually own one.
Chaos engineering has the most lurid name in software and the most conservative temperament. If recovery is a capability, this is how you find out whether you actually own one.
This site now answers questions over MCP through a tool called `ask_matt`. It quotes from published articles, hands over the hand-kept numbers when a question wants one, cites everything, and refuses the rest. The refusal took the most design effort.
Servers fail every day. Whether that becomes an outage depends far more on the organisation than the infrastructure.
Most engineering systems are built to answer what happened. The harder question, the one that surfaces at the worst possible moment, is who changed what, when, why, and whether they should have.
When every candidate has a world-class assistant in the next tab, the interview stops measuring memory and starts measuring judgement. Most processes haven't noticed yet.
The danger of AI isn't that it makes engineers less productive. It's that it quietly removes the exercise that kept them sharp in the first place.
Lead time, deployment frequency and change failure rate tell us a great deal about delivery systems. They tell us surprisingly little about the performance of individual engineers.
Every technology generation promises to transform how software gets delivered. Most of them eventually rediscover that organisational structure shapes the outcome far more than the tools the engineers happen to be holding.
The most effective governance models don't rely on approval boards, process documents or compliance checklists. They make the right thing the easiest thing, and then mostly get out of the way.
Why Model Context Protocol matters less because of the protocol itself and more because it solves a problem every engineering organisation eventually encounters.
The hardest part of AI adoption isn't choosing tools. It's changing how engineers, leaders and organisations work around them.
Most software engineers think a payment is a database transaction. The payments industry has spent decades proving otherwise.
Year after year the breach reports tell the same story: not sophisticated attackers, just credentials sitting somewhere they shouldn't.
Code rarely becomes hard to maintain because engineers wanted it that way. More often the architecture is just a faithful record of the incentives, constraints and decisions of the organisation around it.
Most engineers think desktop platforms are about windows and toolbars. The hard parts are identity, communication, deployment, versioning and convincing hundreds of applications to coexist without setting fire to each other.
Most caching strategies look brilliant during architecture reviews and become considerably less impressive the first time stale data reaches production.
Occasional notes on platform engineering, building dependable software and that constant buzz word we doom scroll past on LinkedIn! No cadence promised.