I'm not familiar with every lifecycle argument but I don't know of any that prevent resources being destroyed if they are removed from the tf file (what the parent was talking about). prevent_destroy, per docs, only applies as long as the resource is defined.
I think the only way to avoid accidentally destroying a resource is to refer to it somewhere else, like in a depends_on array. At least that would block the plan.
>I don't know of any that prevent resources being destroyed if they are removed from the tf file (what the parent was talking about).
Azure Locks (which you can also manage with Terraform), Open Policy Agent, Sentinel rules, etc. will prevent a destroy even if you remove the definition from your Terraform codebase. Again, if you're not operationally mature enough, the problem isn't the tool, it's you.
"Operationally mature" is code here for "the gun starts out loaded and pointed at your foot". It's fine to point out that that's a suboptimal design for a tool.
>Operationally mature" is code here for "the gun starts out loaded and pointed at your foot"
No, it's code for "don't build a load bearing bridge if you don't understand structural engineering."
> It's fine to point out that that's a suboptimal design for a tool.
This isn't "suboptimal" though. If you delete a stored procedure in your RDBMS and it causes an outage, it's not because SQL/PostgreSQL is suboptimal. Similarly if you accidentally delete files from your file system, it's not because file systems are "suboptimal". It's because you weren't operationally mature enough to have proper testing and backups in place.
Defaults matter. I don't know how else to express that a system which fails safe in the face of fallible humans is strictly better, all else being equal, than the alternative.
It doesn't just "get deleted," by default it prompts and warns the user that there is a deletion planned, and the user must manually confirm the deletion. There is no issue.
That sort of manufacturing could take longer than 4 years to build much less profit from. Smarter to just wait it out and increase the domestic price to just below the foreign price+tariff.
Perhaps, but most light-industry will likely open secondary factory locations in 8 months or hire contract manufacturing firms in a few days. Then turn around and drop demand deficient labor in the hostile markets.
People respond to actions rather than posturing, and business people view the political process very differently. We'd be fooling ourselves to think it is about anything other than profit. Many people are likely about to lose their jobs, and there is nothing funny about that... Best regards =3
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Maybe it's better these days, but back when I used to use online apps/sites to pay for parking in private lots, 4/5 times I still got a "ticket." I never had to pay the fine with money, only with time.
I think it really was the 4th time I decided to stop using those apps entirely.
Sometimes I wonder if the devs behind these apps and processes feel embarrassed by the results. I would be, even if the failures weren't my fault.
Don't forget the company being so weak it has resorted to suing its former customers because they decided to stop buying the company's product. I wonder what the government equivalent will be.
Legal requirement to loan to the government at negative interest rates.
Just imagine the voice:
"It’s not a tax, folks—no, no, the fake news will say that, but it’s not a tax. It’s a beautiful, tremendous investment in our great government, the best government in the world—people are saying it. And look, some very smart people, the best people, they tell me, ‘Sir, this is how we build a stronger economy,’ and I say, ‘You know what? You’re right!’ Because let’s be honest, negative interest—some people don’t get it, but I get it—it’s a winning deal, okay?"
It was JC Penney, however they went beyond merely rounding prices. They ditched sales and coupons, which are unfortunately very popular, and that is often cited as the reason the "fair and square" plan failed.
Did they replace the sales and coupons with simply lower prices across the board? Because that would make it more attractive to buy there. If not, it's a price increase.
Yes, but the lower prices across the board were close to the average selling price before, not the best price you used to be able to get using a coupon for an item on sale. Therefore deal hunters no longer wanted to shop there. The price-insensitive folks still did, but they were the ones who used to pay full price and subsidize the deal hunters, and now they were getting a lower price than before. Thus it was a money losing strategy for the company.
> It’s a common complaint on forums like /r/medicine because doctors are seeing a rapidly growing number of patients who have gotten bad advice or prescriptions from overconfident NPs, especially in states where NPs can prescribe controlled substances.
I wonder how much of this is simply because people are more able to afford (or even merely schedule!) medical care because NPs are available. There are certainly a lot of doctors that overprescribe and give bad advice after all.
No, I mean he isn't under the same corporate surveillance the rest of "alexa" users are. He has actual humans named Alexa ready to take any order he gives them.
I'm being facetious of course, but that's probably what I would do if I were a tech mogul with billions and billions of dollars.
Isn’t the story that Echo mostly exists because of Bezos? As in, it was his baby and wasn’t immediately discontinued because he wanted voice assistants to be a thing.
Whether that’s still true in 2025 I’m not sure, but the chances of him using it seems fairly high given its origins.
