Amir

The pgbouncer=true param is the one everyone forgets, and the failure is confusing: it works fine at low traffic and then throws prepared statement "s0" already exists the moment two requests land on the same pooled backend.

At six hours a week, batch by type. One night is code, one night is support and email, weekend morning is the thing needing actual thought. Switching between them inside a 90 minute session costs you a third of it and you will not notice it happening.

Nothing is wrong with your code. Action IDs are hashes generated at build time and the server only knows the IDs from the build it is running. An old tab holds a bundle from build A and posts an ID that build B has never heard of, so the lookup fails. It stops after 20 minutes because that is how long it takes everyone to reload something.

Three things help, in order of effort:

• Deployment skew protection, if your platform has it: requests carrying the old build's id get routed to the old deployment, which is still running. This makes the problem disappear rather than get handled.
• A version check. Serve the build id on every response (or poll a tiny /version route every 60s), compare to the one the page was served with, and show a "new version available: reload" bar. Cheap and it fixes the stale-JS-chunk 404s too.
• Stop deploying at 15:00 on a workday. Only half a joke.

What you cannot do is catch it and retry, because the client genuinely does not have code for the new action.

One hour with an employment lawyer in your own country costs less than a month of your hosting and gets you an actual answer about your actual contract instead of a thread of people describing different legal systems to each other.

Before you rebuild anything, run EXPLAIN ANALYZE and confirm the index is being used at all. If your query filters by tenant alongside the vector ordering, the planner may decide a sequential scan is cheaper, or use the vector index and then throw most of the results away at the filter, leaving you with three rows out of a requested ten. Both look like "vector search got slow" from the application.

Raise maintenance_work_mem before you build a big hnsw index. Ours failed twice at the default and the error message is not especially forthcoming about why.

Leave it off permanently then. You pay maybe 10-15 extra seconds on a cold boot and get a fresh train every time. That's a good trade for not wondering where half your RAM went.

Turn EXPO off and run at plain JEDEC 4800 for two days. If 32GB shows up every single boot at stock, the sticks and slots are fine and what you actually have is failed memory training, where the board gives up and drops a channel instead of retrying.

Then go find a setting called Memory Context Restore, usually buried in the AMD overclocking submenu, and turn it OFF. It caches the training result to speed up boot, and on early B650 boards a bad cached result gets reused on every cold start, which is exactly the on-again-off-again pattern you're describing.

Your day job is the same activity, which is the whole explanation. People whose day job is a warehouse or a classroom genuinely do get more evening coding hours out of the same body. It is not a discipline gap between you and them, it is a different starting state.

Went through this at six customers. Ended up doing the boring version: wrote a two page security page covering where data lives, what's encrypted, who has access (me), the backup schedule, and what happens if I get hit by a bus. Sent it to the one who was blocked and it cleared their review.

I genuinely thought I'd need a full audit and what I needed was a page.

Embarrassingly obvious once written down. Added a rule that nothing ships that I have not run locally twice, and shifted deploys to Monday. Three weeks clean.

Jump to Node 20, that is the safe LTS to land on.

Two people: let whichever of you has an actual opinion pick, write it down with the date, and do not revisit for a year. The cost of the meeting exceeds the difference.

Did three days for eight months. The unexpected part was which hours I got: a Tuesday morning is a completely different cognitive resource from 21:00 on a Wednesday. The product got the good brain for the first time.

That's a healthy mount. If the noise bothers you, cap the long duration power limit at 180W. You lose maybe 4-6% in renders and drop 10C, and games won't change at all because they never got near that ceiling.

Nothing is wrong. A 13700K under an all-core load will run to its thermal limit and then hold there by dropping clocks, and that limit is 100C. Hitting 95 and parking is the design working, not the cooler failing.

The number that tells you whether your mount is good is not the peak temperature, it's the sustained power. Watch package power in HWiNFO during the render. A good air cooler in a decent case will hold something like 200-230W at 95C. If you're pinned at 95C while only pulling 130W, then yes, something is wrong with the contact.

The idle of 34C already suggests the mount is fine, by the way. A badly seated cooler usually shows up as a high idle too.

Estimate both in hours, double the estimate, then check the total against 48. It will not fit and the decision makes itself. The flip-flopping is happening because you are comparing them as ideas rather than as hours.

GPU, and it isn't close for your use case. At 1440p the graphics card sets your frame rate almost entirely, and one tier up is usually 20-30% more performance. Going from a mid NVMe to a top one changes level load times by a second or two and changes frame rate by roughly zero.

16GB is genuinely enough for gaming and photo editing today. If you find yourself short in two years, a second 16GB stick is a ten minute job and the price will have come down.

Safer, yes. But the failure mode is that the mismatched pair won't run its rated speed, which costs you a couple of percent, not that it won't boot. Weigh a couple of percent against 25% more GPU.