fidzu : python

#723 - FEBRUARY 24, 2026
View in Browser »

Replay: Where Developers Build Reliable AI

Replay is a practical conference for developers building real systems. The Python AI & versioning workshop covers durable AI agents, safe workflow evolution, and production-ready deployment techniques. Use code PYCODER75 for 75% off your ticket →
TEMPORAL sponsor

Discussions

Python Jobs

Python + AI Content Specialist (Anywhere)

Real Python

Software Engineer (Python / Django) (South San Francisco, CA, USA)

Mirvie

More Python Jobs >>>

Articles & Tutorials

B2B MCP Auth Support

Your users are asking if they can connect their AI agent to your product, but you want to make sure they can do it safely and securely. PropelAuth makes that possible →
PROPELAUTH sponsor

Projects & Code

Events

Happy Pythoning!
This was PyCoder's Weekly Issue #723.
View in Browser »

[ Subscribe to 🐍 PyCoder's Weekly 💌 - Get the best Python news, articles, and tutorials delivered to your inbox once a week >> Click here to learn more ]

24 Feb 2026 7:30pm GMT

FastAPI is a web framework for building APIs with Python. It leverages standard Python type hints to provide automatic validation, serialization, and interactive documentation. When you're deciding between Python web frameworks, FastAPI stands out for its speed, developer experience, and built-in features that reduce boilerplate code for API development:

Whether you're building a minimal REST API or a complex backend service, understanding core features of FastAPI will help you make an informed decision about adopting it for your projects. To get the most from this video course, you'll benefit from having basic knowledge of Python functions, HTTP concepts, and JSON handling.

[ Improve Your Python With 🐍 Python Tricks 💌 - Get a short & sweet Python Trick delivered to your inbox every couple of days. >> Click here to learn more and see examples ]

24 Feb 2026 2:00pm GMT

You've heard this phrase before: "Everything is an object in Python". But here's another phrase that's related but rather less catchy:

Everything goes through special methods (dunder methods) in Python

Special methods are everywhere. However, you don't see them. In fact, you're not meant to use them directly unless you're defining them within a class. They're out of sight. But they keep everything moving smoothly in Python.

Here's a short essay exploring where these special methods fit within Python.

Why Should I Care About Special Methods?

"Everything goes through special methods in Python." I should probably preface the phrase with "almost", but the phrase is already unwieldy as it is.

You want to display an object on the screen? Python looks for guidance in .__str__() or .__repr__().

You want to use the object in a for loop? Is it even possible? Python looks for .__iter__() to check whether it can iterate over the object and how.

Do you want to fetch an individual item from the object? If this makes sense for this object, then it will have a .__getitem__() special method.

How should Python interpret an object's truthiness? There's .__bool__() for that. Or .__len__()!

Ah, you'd like to add an object to another object. Does your object have a .__add__() special method?

I could go on. I'll post links to articles that cover some of these special methods in more detail below.

I'm also running a two-hour workshop this Thursday, 26 February, called Python's Plumbing • Dunder Methods and Python's Hidden Interface

Book Workshops

Many operations you take for granted in your code are governed by special methods. Each class defines the special methods it needs, and Python knows how to handle instances of that class through those methods.

But let's talk about different ways we refer to these special methods.

What's In A Name?

These methods are called special methods. That's their official name. These special methods have double underscores at the beginning and end of their names, such as .__init__(), .__str__(), and .__iter__(). This double-underscore notation led to the informal name "dunder methods". And let's face it, most people call them "dunder methods" instead of their actual name: "special methods."

I often call them dunder methods, too. However, the term dunder merely describes the syntax, double underscore, so it doesn't tell us much about what they do. The term special doesn't tell us what they do, either, but it shows us they have a special role in Python.

There's No Such Thing as Magic

Some people also call them magic methods. However, I avoid this term, and I discourage students from using it. It makes these methods look unnecessarily mysterious, perhaps difficult to understand because it's all down to magic.

But there's no such thing as magic (unless you're Harry Potter). And the magic tricks we see from real-world "magicians" are just that - tricks. The magic dissolves away once you know how the trick works.

And if you're learning Python, then you need to learn how to be a magician. You need to learn the "magic tricks." Therefore, they're no longer magic!

Python's Plumbing ("Plumbing Methods", Anyone?)

So, "special method" tells us that these methods are important, but it doesn't tell us what they do. "Dunder method" describes the syntax. "Magic method" misleads us and doesn't provide any useful insight.

How about "plumbing methods" then? Now, before anyone takes me too seriously, I'm saying this with my tongue firmly in my cheek. I'm not that foolish to suggest a new term for the whole Python community to adopt. And it's not as flashy as "magic methods" or as cool as "dunder methods". But bear with me…

Let's explore the analogy, even if the term won't catch on.

Disclaimer: I know very little about plumbing. But I think that's OK for this essay!

There are pipes, valves, and other stuff carrying water (clean or otherwise) around your house. You know they're there. You need them there. But you don't see them.

You don't think about these pipes unless you're building the house - or unless the pipes are blocked or leaking.

The house's plumbing keeps things running smoothly. Yet, it's out of sight, and you don't normally think about it. You take it for granted.

You see where I'm going, right?

Python's special methods perform the same role. You don't normally see them when coding since they're called implicitly, behind the scenes. You do need to define the special methods you need when you're defining the class, just like you'll need to lay the pipes when building or modifying your house.

And if something goes wrong in your code, you may need to dive into how these dunder methods behave, just as when you have a leak and need to explore which pipe is responsible.

Good plumbing is reliable, predictable. Bad plumbing is asking for trouble. The same applies to the infrastructure you create through the special methods you define in classes.

So, there you go, they're "plumbing methods". This name tells us what they do!

I'm running a two-hour live workshop this Thursday called Python's Plumbing • Dunder Methods and Python's Hidden Interface. This is your last chance to join and I may not run this workshop again for a while.

This workshop is the first of three in the Python Behind the Scenes series. The other two workshops in the series are:

• #2 • Pythonic Iteration: Iterables, Iterators, itertools

• #3 • To Inherit or Not? Inheritance, Composition, Abstract Base Classes, and Protocols

Join all three, or pick and choose:

The Python Coding Stack

When "It Works" Is Not Good Enough • Live Workshops

You've been reading articles here on The Python Coding Stack. How about live workshops…

Read more

6 days ago · 1 like · 2 comments · Stephen Gruppetta

Book Workshops

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

For more Python resources, you can also visit Real Python-you may even stumble on one of my own articles or courses there!

Also, are you interested in technical writing? You'd like to make your own writing more narrative, more engaging, more memorable? Have a look at Breaking the Rules.

And you can find out more about me at stephengruppetta.com

Further reading related to this article's topic:

• This is part of a longer OOP series: Time for Something Special • Special Methods in Python Classes

• The Anatomy of a for Loop

• The Manor House, the Oak-Panelled Library, the Vending Machine, and Python's __getitem__() [Part 1]

• And Now for Something New

• Why Do 5 + "5" and "5" + 5 Give Different Errors in Python? • Do You Know The Whole Story?

• My Life • The Autobiography of a Python Object

• Telling The Truthy

24 Feb 2026 1:56pm GMT

Introduction

📣 Sponsor Django News

Reach 4,305 engaged Django developers with a single weekly placement. High open rates. Real clicks. Only two sponsor spots per issue.

👉 Book your spot

django-news.com

Django Software Foundation

Plan to Adopt Contributor Covenant 3 as Django's New Code of Conduct

Django establishes a transparent community-driven process and advances the adoption of Contributor Covenant 3 as its Code of Conduct with staged policy updates.

djangoproject.com

Python Software Foundation

Join the Python Security Response Team!

Python core adds public governance and onboarding for the Python Security Response Team, enabling broader community nominations and coordinated CVE and OSV vulnerability remediation.

blogspot.com

Wagtail CMS News

Open source AI we use to work on Wagtail

Wagtail team recommends using open source AI models and inference providers like Scaleway, Neuralwatt, Ollama, and Mistral to power Wagtail AI integrations.

wagtail.org

Updates to Django

Today, "Updates to Django" is presented by Raffaella from Djangonaut Space! 🚀

Last week we had 25 pull requests merged into Django by 13 different contributors - including 2 first-time contributors! Congratulations to 93578237 and Hossam Hassan for having their first commits merged into Django - welcome on board!

News in Django 6.1:

• The new QuerySet.totally_ordered property returns True if the QuerySet is ordered and the ordering is deterministic.
• HttpRequest.multipart_parser_class can now be customized to use a different multipart parser class.
• StringAgg now supports distinct=True on SQLite when using the default delimiter Value(",") only.
• first() and last() no longer order by the primary key when a QuerySet's ordering has been forcibly cleared by calling order_by() with no arguments.

It's also fixed for Django 5.2 NameError when inspecting functions making use of deferred annotations in Python 3.14 (#36903).

Is deprecated in Django 6.0: Passing a string to the delimiter argument of the (deprecated) PostgreSQL StringAgg class is deprecated. Use a Value or expression instead to prepare for compatibility with the generally available StringAgg class.

Django Newsletter

Sponsored Link 1

PyTV - Free Online Python Conference (March 4th)

1 Day, 15 Speakers, 6 hours of live talks including from Sarah Boyce, Sheena O'Connell, Carlton Gibson, and Will Vincent. Sign up and save the date!

jetbrains.com

Articles

Checking Django Settings

Use Python type hints and runtime Django checks to validate core settings types and provide typed helpers for structured settings to catch misconfigurations early.

dev.to

Difference Between render() and HttpResponse() in Django (With Practical Examples)

render() loads and renders templates with context and returns an HttpResponse, while HttpResponse returns raw content directly, best for simple or API responses.

dev.to

A CLI to fight GitHub spam

gh triage provides gh CLI extensions to automate marking GitHub issues and PRs as spam or invalid and bulk unassigning reviewers and assignees.

hugovk.dev

Deploying a project to the world

Outlines IaC and deployment pipeline practices: state-aware deployments, environment separation, and bootstrap management to deploy applications reliably with Pulumi at scale.

softwarecrafts.co.uk

Tech Hiring Has a Fraud Problem

Fraudulent and AI deepfake candidates are increasingly infiltrating Python and Django hiring pipelines, requiring earlier screening, identity checks, and community verification.

foxleytalent.com

Events

DjangoCon Europe 2026 Opportunity Grants

Need financial support to attend DjangoCon Europe 2026?

Apply for an opportunity grant by March 1st, 2026.

djangocon.eu

PyCon US 2026: Maintainers Summit

The Maintainers Summit at PyCon US 2026 invites Python project leaders to gather in Long Beach on May 16 to share real-world insights on building sustainable projects and thriving communities.

pycon.org

Django Job Board

Infrastructure Engineer at Python Software Foundation 🆕

Software Engineer (Python / Django) at Mirvie 🆕

Python Developer REST APIs at Worx-ai 🆕

Lead Backend Engineer at TurnTable

Backend Software Developer at Chartwell Resource Group Ltd.

Django Newsletter

Projects

RealOrangeOne/django-tasks-db

An ORM-based backend for Django Tasks.

github.com

RealOrangeOne/django-tasks-rq

A Django Tasks backend which uses RQ as its underlying queue.

github.com

UnknownPlatypus/djangofmt

A fast, HTML aware, Django template formatter, written in Rust.

github.com

yassi/dj-urls-panel

Visualize Django URL routing inside the Django Admin, including patterns, views, namespaces, and conflicts.

github.com

Sponsorship

🚀 Reach 4,300+ Django Developers Every Week

Django News is read by thousands of engaged Django and Python developers each week. With a 52% open rate and 15% click-through rate, our audience doesn't just subscribe. They pay attention.

Put your product, service, event, or job in front of developers who build with Django every day.

👉 Explore sponsorship options

django-news.com

This RSS feed is published on https://django-news.com/. You can also subscribe via email.

20 Feb 2026 5:00pm GMT

A practical step-by-step guide to using Django ORM in standalone mode to connect to and query an existing database using inspectdb.

20 Feb 2026 5:00am GMT

Onovanday Restonpay is going to logbay here again. It's time to take back the rss-source-rss-reader web of links

19 Feb 2026 2:36am GMT

Hey everyone, quick heads up: I'm adding analytics to the blog.

Before you reach for your adblocker, hear me out. I'm using Umami, which is open source, privacy-respecting, and doesn't use cookies. It doesn't track you across sites, doesn't collect personal data, and is fully open source so you can verify that yourself.

On top of that, I'm self-hosting it on my own infrastructure, so the data never touches a third party. No Google Analytics, no Cloudflare analytics, no one else sees anything.

I mainly want to know which posts are actually useful to people and which ones are just me yelling into the void. That's it.

If you have any questions or concerns, you know where to find me on the Contact page.

18 Feb 2026 6:00am GMT

22 Jan 2026 9:43am GMT

22 Jan 2026 9:43am GMT

22 Jan 2026 9:43am GMT

As you already know if you've read any of this blog in the last few years, I am a somewhat reluctant - but nevertheless quite staunch - critic of LLMs. This means that I have enthusiasts of varying degrees sometimes taking issue with my stance.

It seems that I am not going to get away from discussions, and, let's be honest, pretty intense arguments about "AI" any time soon. These arguments are starting to make me quite upset. So it might be time to set some rules of engagement.

I've written about all of these before at greater length, but this is a short post because it's not about the technology or making a broader point, it's about me. These are rules for engaging with me, personally, on this topic. Others are welcome to adopt these rules if they so wish but I am not encouraging anyone to do so.

Thus, I've made this post as short as I can so everyone interested in engaging can read the whole thing. If you can't make it through to the end, then please just follow Rule Zero.

Rule Zero: Maybe Don't

You are welcome to ignore me. You can think my take is stupid and I can think yours is. We don't have to get into an Internet Fight about it; we can even remain friends. You do not need to instigate an argument with me at all, if you think that my analysis is so bad that it doesn't require rebutting.

Rule One: No 'Just'

As I explained in a post with perhaps the least-predictive title I've ever written, "I Think I'm Done Thinking About genAI For Now", I've already heard a bunch of bad arguments. Don't tell me to 'just' use a better model, use an agentic tool, use a more recent version, or use some prompting trick that you personally believe works better. If you skim my work and think that I must not have deeply researched anything or read about it because you don't like my conclusion, that is wrong.

Rule Two: No 'Look At This Cool Thing'

Purely as a productivity tool, I have had a terrible experience with genAI. Perhaps you have had a great one. Neat. That's great for you. As I explained at great length in "The Futzing Fraction", my concern with generative AI is that I believe it is probably a net negative impact on productivity, based on both my experience and plenty of citations. Go check out the copious footnotes if you're interested in more detail.

Therefore, I have already acknowledged that you can get an LLM to do various impressive, cool things, sometimes. If I tell you that you will, on average, lose money betting on a slot machine, a picture of a slot machine hitting a jackpot is not evidence against my position.

Rule Two And A Half: Engage In Metacognition

I specifically didn't title the previous rule "no anecdotes" because data beyond anecdotes may be extremely expensive to produce. I don't want to say you can never talk to me unless you're doing a randomized controlled trial. However, if you are going to tell me an anecdote about the way that you're using an LLM, I am interested in hearing how you are compensating for the well-documented biases that LLM use tends to induce. Try to measure what you can.

Rule Three: Do Not Cite The Deep Magic To Me

As I explained in "A Grand Unified Theory of the AI Hype Cycle", I already know quite a bit of history of the "AI" label. If you are tempted to tell me something about how "AI" is really such a broad field, and it doesn't just mean LLMs, especially if you are trying to launder the reputation of LLMs under the banner of jumbling them together with other things that have been called "AI", I assure you that this will not be convincing to me.

Rule Four: Ethics Are Not Optional

I have made several arguments in my previous writing: there are ethical arguments, efficacy arguments, structuralist arguments, efficiency arguments and aesthetic arguments.

I am happy to, for the purposes of a good-faith discussion, focus on a specific set of concerns or an individual point that you want to make where you think I got something wrong. If you convince me that I am entirely incorrect about the effectiveness or predictability of LLMs in general or as specific LLM product, you don't need to make a comprehensive argument about whether one should use the technology overall. I will even assume that you have your own ethical arguments.

However, if you scoff at the idea that one should have any ethical boundaries at all, and think that there's no reason to care about the overall utilitarian impact of this technology, that it's worth using no matter what else it does as long as it makes you 5% better at your job, that's sociopath behavior.

This includes extreme whataboutism regarding things like the water use of datacenters, other elements of the surveillance technology stack, and so on.

Consequences

These are rules, once again, just for engaging with me. I have no particular power to enact broader sanctions upon you, nor would I be inclined to do so if I could. However, if you can't stay within these basic parameters and you insist upon continuing to direct messages to me about this topic, I will summarily block you with no warning, on mastodon, email, GitHub, IRC, or wherever else you're choosing to do that. This is for your benefit as well: such a discussion will not be a productive use of either of our time.

05 Jan 2026 5:22am GMT

The dawning of a new year is an opportune moment to contemplate what has transpired in the old year, and consider what is likely to happen in the new one.

Today, I'd like to contemplate that contemplation itself.

The 20th century was an era characterized by rapidly accelerating change in technology and industry, creating shorter and shorter cultural cycles of changes in lifestyles. Thus far, the 21st century seems to be following that trend, at least in its recently concluded first quarter.

The early half of the twentieth century saw the massive disruption caused by electrification, radio, motion pictures, and then television.

In 1971, Intel poured gasoline on that fire by releasing the 4004, a microchip generally recognized as the first general-purpose microprocessor. Popular innovations rapidly followed: the computerized cash register, the personal computer, credit cards, cellular phones, text messaging, the Internet, the web, online games, mass surveillance, app stores, social media.

These innovations have arrived faster than previous generations, but also, they have crossed a crucial threshold: that of the human lifespan.

While the entire second millennium A.D. has been characterized by a gradually accelerating rate of technological and social change - the printing press and the industrial revolution were no slouches, in terms of changing society, and those predate the 20th century - most of those changes had the benefit of unfolding throughout the course of a generation or so.

Which means that any individual person in any given century up to the 20th might remember one major world-altering social shift within their lifetime, not five to ten of them. The diversity of human experience is vast, but most people would not expect that the defining technology of their lifetime was merely the latest in a progression of predictable civilization-shattering marvels.

Along with each of these successive generations of technology, we minted a new generation of industry titans. Westinghouse, Carnegie, Sarnoff, Edison, Ford, Hughes, Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Musk. Not just individual rich people, but entire new classes of rich people that did not exist before. "Radio DJ", "Movie Star", "Rock Star", "Dot Com Founder", were all new paths to wealth opened (and closed) by specific technologies. While most of these people did come from at least some level of generational wealth, they no longer came from a literal hereditary aristocracy.

To describe this new feeling of constant acceleration, a new phrase was coined: "The Next Big Thing". In addition to denoting that some Thing was coming and that it would be Big (i.e.: that it would change a lot about our lives), this phrase also carries the strong implication that such a Thing would be a product. Not a development in social relationships or a shift in cultural values, but some new and amazing form of conveying salted meat paste or what-have-you, that would make whatever lucky tinkerer who stumbled into it into a billionaire - along with any friends and family lucky enough to believe in their vision and get in on the ground floor with an investment.

In the latter part of the 20th century, our entire model of capital allocation shifted to account for this widespread belief. No longer were mega-businesses built by bank loans, stock issuances, and reinvestment of profit, the new model was "Venture Capital". Venture capital is a model of capital allocation explicitly predicated on the idea that carefully considering each bet on a likely-to-succeed business and reducing one's risk was a waste of time, because the return on the equity from the Next Big Thing would be so disproportionately huge - 10x, 100x, 1000x - that one could afford to make at least 10 bad bets for each good one, and still come out ahead.

The biggest risk was in missing the deal, not in giving a bunch of money to a scam. Thus, value investing and focus on fundamentals have been broadly disregarded in favor of the pursuit of the Next Big Thing.

If Americans of the twentieth century were temporarily embarrassed millionaires, those of the twenty-first are all temporarily embarrassed FAANG CEOs.

The predicament that this tendency leaves us in today is that the world is increasingly run by generations - GenX and Millennials - with the shared experience that the computer industry, either hardware or software, would produce some radical innovation every few years. We assume that to be true.

But all things change, even change itself, and that industry is beginning to slow down. Physically, transistor density is starting to brush up against physical limits. Economically, most people are drowning in more compute power than they know what to do with anyway. Users already have most of what they need from the Internet.

The big new feature in every operating system is a bunch of useless junk nobody really wants and is seeing remarkably little uptake. Social media and smartphones changed the world, true, but… those are both innovations from 2008. They're just not new any more.

So we are all - collectively, culturally - looking for the Next Big Thing, and we keep not finding it.

It wasn't 3D printing. It wasn't crowdfunding. It wasn't smart watches. It wasn't VR. It wasn't the Metaverse, it wasn't Bitcoin, it wasn't NFTs¹.

It's also not AI, but this is why so many people assume that it will be AI. Because it's got to be something, right? If it's got to be something then AI is as good a guess as anything else right now.

The fact is, our lifetimes have been an extreme anomaly. Things like the Internet used to come along every thousand years or so, and while we might expect that the pace will stay a bit higher than that, it is not reasonable to expect that something new like "personal computers" or "the Internet"³ will arrive again.

We are not going to get rich by getting in on the ground floor of the next Apple or the next Google because the next Apple and the next Google are Apple and Google. The industry is maturing. Software technology, computer technology, and internet technology are all maturing.

There Will Be Next Things

Research and development is happening in all fields all the time. Amazing new developments quietly and regularly occur in pharmaceuticals and in materials science. But these are not predictable. They do not inhabit the public consciousness until they've already happened, and they are rarely so profound and transformative that they change everybody's life.

There will even be new things in the computer industry, both software and hardware. Foldable phones do address a real problem (I wish the screen were even bigger but I don't want to carry around such a big device), and would probably be more popular if they got the costs under control. One day somebody's going to crack the problem of volumetric displays, probably. Some VR product will probably, eventually, hit a more realistic price/performance ratio where the niche will expand at least a little more.

Maybe there will even be something genuinely useful, which is recognizably adjacent to the current "AI" fad, but if it is, it will be some new development that we haven't seen yet. If current AI technology were sufficient to drive some interesting product, it would already be doing it, not using marketing disguised as science to conceal diminishing returns on current investments.

But They Will Not Be Big

The impulse to find the One Big Thing that will dominate the next five years is a fool's errand. Incremental gains are diminishing across the board. The markets for time and attention² are largely saturated. There's no need for another streaming service if 100% of your leisure time is already committed to TikTok, YouTube and Netflix; famously, Netflix has already considered sleep its primary competitor for close to a decade - years before the pandemic.

Those rare tech markets which aren't saturated are suffering from pedestrian economic problems like wealth inequality, not technological bottlenecks.

For example, the thing preventing the development of a robot that can do your laundry and your dishes without your input is not necessarily that we couldn't build something like that, but that most households just can't afford it without wage growth catching up to productivity growth. It doesn't make sense for anyone to commit to the substantial R&D investment that such a thing would take, if the market doesn't exist because the average worker isn't paid enough to afford it on top of all the other tech which is already required to exist in society.

The projected income from the tiny, wealthy sliver of the population who could pay for the hardware, cannot justify an investment in the software past a fake version remotely operated by workers in the global south, only made possible by Internet wage arbitrage, i.e. a more palatable, modern version of indentured servitude.

Even if we were to accept the premise of an actually-"AI" version of this, that is still just a wish that ChatGPT could somehow improve enough behind the scenes to replace that worker, not any substantive investment in a novel, proprietary-to-the-chores-robot software system which could reliably perform specific functions.

What, Then?

The expectation for, and lack of, a "big thing" is a big problem. There are others who could describe its economic, political, and financial dimensions better than I can. So then let me speak to my expertise and my audience: open source software developers.

When I began my own involvement with open source, a big part of the draw for me was participating in a low-cost (to the corporate developer) but high-value (to society at large) positive externality. None of my employers would ever have cared about many of the applications for which Twisted forms a core bit of infrastructure; nor would I have been able to predict those applications' existence. Yet, it is nice to have contributed to their development, even a little bit.

However, it's not actually a positive externality if the public at large can't directly benefit from it.

When real world-changing, disruptive developments are occurring, the bean-counters are not watching positive externalities too closely. As we discovered with many of the other benefits that temporarily accrued to labor in the tech economy, Open Source that is usable by individuals and small companies may have been a ZIRP. If you know you're gonna make a billion dollars you're not going to worry about giving away a few hundred thousand here and there.

When gains are smaller and harder to realize, and margins are starting to get squeezed, it's harder to justify the investment in vaguely good vibes.

But this, itself, is not a call to action. I doubt very much that anyone reading this can do anything about the macroeconomic reality of higher interest rates. The technological reality of "development is happening slower" is inherently something that you can't change on purpose.

However, what we can do is to be aware of this trend in our own work.

Fight Scale Creep

It seems to me that more and more open source infrastructure projects are tools for hyper-scale application development, only relevant to massive cloud companies. This is just a subjective assessment on my part - I'm not sure what tools even exist today to measure this empirically - but I remember a big part of the open source community when I was younger being things like Inkscape, Themes.Org and Slashdot, not React, Docker Hub and Hacker News.

This is not to say that the hobbyist world no longer exists. There is of course a ton of stuff going on with Raspberry Pi, Home Assistant, OwnCloud, and so on. If anything there's a bit of a resurgence of self-hosting. But the interests of self-hosters and corporate developers are growing apart; there seems to be far less of a beneficial overflow from corporate infrastructure projects into these enthusiast or prosumer communities.

This is the concrete call to action: if you are employed in any capacity as an open source maintainer, dedicate more energy to medium- or small-scale open source projects.

If your assumption is that you will eventually reach a hyper-scale inflection point, then mimicking Facebook and Netflix is likely to be a good idea. However, if we can all admit to ourselves that we're not going to achieve a trillion-dollar valuation and a hundred thousand engineer headcount, we can begin to consider ways to make our Next Thing a bit smaller, and to accommodate the world as it is rather than as we wish it would be.

Be Prepared to Scale Down

Here are some design guidelines you might consider, for just about any open source project, particularly infrastructure ones:

1. Don't assume that your software can sustain an arbitrarily large fixed overhead because "you just pay that cost once" and you're going to be running a billion instances so it will always amortize; maybe you're only going to be running ten.

2. Remember that such fixed overhead includes not just CPU, RAM, and filesystem storage, but also the learning curve for developers. Front-loading a massive amount of conceptual complexity to accommodate the problems of hyper-scalers is a common mistake. Try to smooth out these complexities and introduce them only when necessary.

3. Test your code on edge devices. This means supporting Windows and macOS, and even Android and iOS. If you want your tool to help empower individual users, you will need to meet them where they are, which is not on an EC2 instance.

4. This includes considering Desktop Linux as a platform, as opposed to Server Linux as a platform, which (while they certainly have plenty in common) they are also distinct in some details. Consider the highly specific example of secret storage: if you are writing something that intends to live in a cloud environment, and you need to configure it with a secret, you will probably want to provide it via a text file or an environment variable. By contrast, if you want this same code to run on a desktop system, your users will expect you to support the Secret Service. This will likely only require a few lines of code to accommodate, but it is a massive difference to the user experience.

5. Don't rely on LLMs remaining cheap or free. If you have LLM-related features⁴, make sure that they are sufficiently severable from the rest of your offering that if ChatGPT starts costing $1000 a month, your tool doesn't break completely. Similarly, do not require that your users have easy access to half a terabyte of VRAM and a rack full of 5090s in order to run a local model.

Even if you were going to scale up to infinity, the ability to scale down and consider smaller deployments means that you can run more comfortably on, for example, a developer's laptop. So even if you can't convince your employer that this is where the economy and the future of technology in our lifetimes is going, it can be easy enough to justify this sort of design shift, particularly as individual choices. Make your onboarding cheaper, your development feedback loops tighter, and your systems generally more resilient to economic headwinds.

So, please design your open source libraries, applications, and services to run on smaller devices, with less complexity. It will be worth your time as well as your users'.

But if you can fix the whole wealth inequality thing, do that first.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you've read here and you'd like to read more of it, or you'd like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor!

02 Jan 2026 1:59am GMT