Good, get him the fuck away from Wordpress. Though frankly, a better solution might be for businesses to ask themselves whether or not they need Wordpress anymore.
In the mean time, if you're unable to derisk Mullenweg out of your business stack, this is a good first step.
WordPress dominance of the web has certainly peaked, but history indicates there will be several years in which to continue to extract comfortable profits while riding it down. e.g. Oracle, a database that almost no business has actually needed in decades.
I'm not convinced that sort of legacy lock in exists in the web space. It moves fast and its value is in the content. In the age of AI, migrating that data makes it trivial to move away from a risky platform. I cut my development teeth on WP and managed some fairly large sites. There are far more interesting and well developed alternatives out there.
Sure, but, even with AI and the technical competence to steer it, it's still a pretty big lift to switch from, e.g. WordPress with billing and various other stuff to some ad hoc other thing. Even when I decided I was done with managing content in WordPress and moved it out to a Hugo static site for my company website, I still kept the commerce stuff in WordPress just because it works and we know it works from a decade or so of operation.
I'm certainly not deploying new WordPress sites, partly because of how weird and hostile Mullenweg has made the WordPress ecosystem for no good reason. I don't even necessarily disagree with the sentiments behind his words and actions, but the methods and how far it's gone in terms of lawfare is just silly and destructive.
Anyway, they won't get decades like Oracle has gotten. But, they've got a few years of comfy margins ahead if they don't blow it up too badly.
They'll continue to have plenty of existing passive revenue as long as WooCommerce users continue to use Stripe, and large enterprises continue to buy in to WP.com VIP.
This rings true to me. I am looking at setting up my own online store, and if you sell (legal!) stuff which Shopify Payments disallows, but Stripe does allow, you end up looking at WooCommerce (a very popular WordPress plugin) pretty fast.
I suspect that there is a body of C programmers out here that use C on a regular basis that aren’t posting who know that using C safely is 99% just using Valgrind and some specific GCC or llvm flags and you’re done.
They don’t reply to these threads to share that knowledge because these threads devolve into cesspools about how you should just use Rust despite the language not meeting specific requirements authors have that you have to do additional work and maintenance for in “safe” languages that you get for free in C because you don’t have to emulate it.
> I suspect that there is a body of C programmers out here that use C on a regular basis that aren’t posting who know that using C safely is 99% just using Valgrind and some specific GCC or llvm flags and you’re done.
C* (the submitted language) is not just about determining memory correctness and related program features like what Valgrind will do for you (or help with). It's about proving correctness of programs more generally, so any C programmer not looking at it because they know about Valgrind are choosing to skip something interesting for a very poor reason.
using C safely is 99% just using Valgrind and some specific GCC or llvm flags and you’re done
I wish that were the case, but it's not. Dynamic analyzers are fantastic and everyone should be using them constantly, but they don't solve the problem of UB. They tell you whether your code, as translated by a specific compiler using a specific set of flags today has detectable problems. There are still gaps, and what's true today might not be true even for the same source code built tomorrow, or given different inputs. Asserting my safety-critical code does X or Y is important to me, and neither C nor C++ have standard tooling that fully addresses that need.
Other languages are much farther along than this. You can in theory take a pile of Rust and isolate exactly the points where undefined behavior might occur, or eliminate them entirely in Ada/Spark.
> I suspect that there is a body of C programmers out here that use C on a regular basis that aren’t posting who know that using C safely is 99% just using Valgrind and some specific GCC or llvm flags and you’re done.
Absolutely right! I sincerely hope they share their knowledge here and elsewhere.
> They don’t reply to these threads to share that knowledge because these threads devolve into cesspools
HN is often rage-inducing when it comes to comments on C/C++/Fortran/Cobol/etc. older languages and systems. There are many critical and industrial-strength systems developed by the previous generation of engineers/programmers which today's noobs/cargo-cultists cannot even hope to imagine much less understand.
As an example, people talk about all the great features provided by Erlang but forget that its BEAM VM where most of the "magic" resides is actually written in C! Imagine how much expertise lies buried in its implementation!
That is called Trusted Computing Base in security speech, having ensure Erlang runtime implementation is safe, is a much reduced effort than certifying a telecommunications distributed application 100% written in C as equally safe under the same attack vectors.
Security Standards/Frameworks like "TCB" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing_base), "Common Criteria" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria) etc. are not what i am talking about here. I am pointing to the fact that there is a large piece of industrial-strength C code (i.e. BEAM/ERTS) whose architecture/complexity/techniques are manifested as the "features" of another higher-level language (i.e. Erlang). People seem to appreciate the latter while not comprehending the former. The underlying C-based infrastructure is so good that there are now multiple different-paradigm languages targeting the BEAM.
Incidentally, the C implementation of BEAM/ERTS is not formally verified; only some parts of the upper-layer intermediate representation and bytecode have been verified (academic). Also an Erlang distributed cluster was designed to operate only within an already secure network (i.e. telephone network) and not on today's public Internet. So if you want to run Erlang securely you would need to know overall system security architectures and follow advice given by the "Erlang Ecosystem Foundation Security Working Group" - https://security.erlef.org/
Qwen3.8 27B seems like it was clearly supposed to be a high-end consumer open-weights model, but the t/s is so low for me on my old M1 Max 64GB that I hope others are getting use out of it.
Unfortunately, the calculus has changed and it seems cheaper to me to just use MiMo V2.5 for pennies or DeepSeek V4 Flash instead of using Qwen anymore unless I need a local model specifically for doing reverse engineering work that gets otherwise rejected.
> Qwen3.8 27B seems like it was clearly supposed to be a high-end consumer open-weights model, but the t/s is so low for me on my old M1 Max 64GB that I hope others are getting use out of it.
Have you tried it with MTPLX? I get around 30 tok/s with it, also on an M1 Max with 64GB.
I've got an M1 Max 64GB too. It's just not an LLM-class workstation. Give it a year and buy an M7 and you'll be laughing. Right now is a really bad time to invest in anything - using the cloud is the cheapest option, especially for open weight models.
Thanks, man! I’ll go use that now that I know. llama-server the last time I used it for inference with this model wasn’t able to produce work fast enough to reach those numbers.
I leave it running at night. No danger of burning my token subscriptions and it has hours and hours to run slowly with a manager like: github.com/kunchenguid/gnhf
I've ran some agentic stuff with Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q4_K_M on my RTX 3090. It's fast enough to be usable in my opinion. But Qwen3.6-35B-A3B in the same quantization is much faster
I find https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/git-fetch-file more useful. It's manifest is nearly the same as a .gitmodules file, but having specific control over what files you want to pull, or what commit or tag, or just the equivalent of latest is way more practical day-to-day.
It seems like something more in-between. Like a git-based npm install, but generic to any repository or language.
It's also "pointer" based, but like vendoring, it's up to you whether or not you want to keep files in the repository. It also seems to be intentionally built for the use case where you modify something from upstream, because if you do have local changes, it detects them and won't overwrite them without your permission.
This isn't really like subtree it's like submodules, but for specific files. This could really be useful, you may want to keep track of a specific file in a repo but not need it as a submodule.
Yes, basically this. I think git-fetch-file has been used in some larger projects based on Googling it, so it seems to be different in that it's been vetted by other orgs, but like Mullvad, theirs is built by a corporation.
reply