While I agree that DevOps needs to be a mindset/culture to be of any benefit beside ticking buzzwords checkboxes - but I really don't see any harm in giving someone a title containing the word DevOps.
Someone who can do the proselytism, take initiatives to drive the adaption and at the same time be the go to guy for the technical knowledge needed for any new processes/tools.
We all agree that the old waterfall inspired way of working when the developers work on their own, throws a bunch of new code down a hatch for the ops guys to deploy and they both blame the other team when something don't work is less than desirable.
Maybe there are some startups that have the devops mindset already from the beginning and a few old companies that can get there on there own, but I think many need some help to get there. Perhaps they could hire someone to get them started?
most of us in hacker news aren't most of the world.
also, "natural" is a kind of ridiculous term. plenty of food additives are natural, but that doesn't make them good. also plenty that are unnatural aren't all bad.
medicines are highly "unnatural", but they save lives. why is food any different?
given how quickly we're heading toward a world in which we don't have the land area to be able to feed our population (and by "heading toward" i mean we already don't and it's getting worse), grass fed anything is totally unsustainable. lab grown meat, or lab vegetables might be our best option, and i'd go with that over a tortured chicken any day
> medicines are highly "unnatural", but they save lives. why is food any different?
Many medicines also cause more harm than they provide help. Just look at the history of drugs that have had to be taken off the market due to crippling or deadly side effects just to treat some mild cold symptoms or something equally minor.
"Natural" is not at all a ridiculous term. It can be made ridiculous when things like "natural flavoring" aren't any different from "artificial flavoring," but I will take natural (or at least human incrementally improved over generations and generations) over artificial (top down diet science-ing) any day.
> Many medicines also cause more harm than they provide help
How many is 'many'? 50%? 25%? Or simply 'more than zero'?
> but I will take natural (or at least human incrementally improved over generations and generations) over artificial (top down diet science-ing) any day.
I assume that you would prefer an 'unnatural' vaccination to the 'natural' disease it prevents. If so, which categories of 'natural' do you prefer?
grass feed beef/lamb, forage egg/chicken ... I buy a lamb from the farmer living next to my father
As far is 'happy cow' goes, there still can be a huge difference between both cases in how they live and die. Firstly, a 'grass fed' or 'forage chicken' label can cover a whole lot of different things. I don't know which country you're from, whether those are the official definitions nor what they mean. But I do know countries where something like 'forage chicken' depending on exact translation and law doesn't even mean they ever saw any daylight or living plants in their life. Just that they got like 1 square meter to live on instead of 1/4. But it doesn't end there. Take the grassfeeding: even if it actually means they could range free on nice green fields, from the moment production starts being all about the money and goes into the direction of industrial-scale it is unfortunately not unlikely their last hours on the way to and in the slaughterhouse were stress, torture and immense pain. Refer to e.g. the recent (very graphic) movie which popped up in Belgium where you could see what goes on in a slaughterhouses processing thousand of pigs a day and how far it deviated from what the laws for it prescribe.
I'd really like to understand these statements - You seem to care about the well-being of the animal while it is alive, but then decide to kill it (or let it be killed) for its meat.
What's the point?
You understand that this animal is happy and thus does not want to be killed, but you value it being happy.
Not the OP, but a meat eater. I think it's obvious for most people that they want to eat meat but they don't want to cause unnecessary suffering. Those two sentiments aren't just not mutually exclusive, they complement each other.
I know people who keep animals for their meat- chickens, ducks, goats, pigs and a cow or two. I've seen them really care for, and about their animals, and I couldn't miss the big, loving smiles on their faces when they're around them, particularly the younger ones. I'd call those smiles almost parental.
The same people have no compunction about killing those same animals, even the younger ones (that have the most tender flesh). I'd even go as far as to say that some part of the love they feel for those animals may actually come from knowing how they taste.
It might sound a bit crazy, but I think it's actually natural to love your food, rather than hate it and wish to hurt it.
I also think other animals have similar feelings. For instance:
I'm going to eat bacon. Why? Because it's tasty and I enjoy it. Om Nom Nom. I'm aware that an animal died for my tasty bacon sandwich. I'm ok with that, because I rank the animal's life as less important than my morning.
I'm not going to torture an animal because I derive no pleasure from it. Given the choice, therefore, I would rather the pig lived a happy enough life in a field with little pig huts to live in before it was slaughtered. I'm willing to pay more for that to be the case, because I think it's the decent thing to do.
I don't love animals in general, heck I barely love any humans...
If someone enjoys torturing animals for fun do you feel fine legalizing it?
Dog fights used to be very popular, but for some reason most people find it unacceptable even though those dogs probably had/have better lives than most farm animals.
>> Am I so wrong in the assumption, that if someone claims to love something, he won't hurt it?
In principle, maybe. In practice, we're really good at dealing with contradictory and even conflicting emotions.
For instance, in the past people used to beat up their kids to teach them things. Today, we generally don't- but that's not because we love our kids any more, or less. We just find it unproductive.
So, yes, it's perfectly possible to dearly love an animal and want to eat it- because, after all, that's why we keep farm animals in the first place: to kill them and eat them (and also for their milk, wool, eggs etc). The relationship that makes us love animals is the same one that makes us kill and eat those same animals.
Edit:
>> A mother loses her child (calf), a sister her brother, just because there is someone who wants to eat him/her/it?
If we didn't do that something else would. Animals kill and eat each other all the time and most of them die when something else eats them.
Of course we're special- but even in our specialness we can only subsist on food that is alive- if it's not a calf, it's an egg that cold have hatched into a chicken, or a fruit that could have grown in a beautiful plant. Calfs and lambs can scream and run away but a cabbage is no less alive.
> Am I so wrong in the assumption, that if someone claims to love something, he won't hurt it?
Not directly relevant to farm animals, but how many married couples don't have fights? I don't think that assumption is right.
And when considering raising and killing an animal vs. never having any animal at all, consider the quote "'tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".
> And they still cause suffering. A mother loses her child (calf), a sister her brother
Unless you have the cure to aging, that's going to happen no matter what. In fact, slaughtering means that more of them die at the same time and don't have to go through this suffering.
It does not want to suffer. Not wanting to die has more to do with avoiding suffering/pain than it does with the dying itself.
Ideally I could eat animals that are happy and content then instantly dead without ever knowing what's happening. If we could breed them with little switches in their brain stems that can be turned to Off via a wireless signal ...
I'd want that. That would be great. Press button, chicken drops dead. Takes 1 microsecond to die.
The more important question is how self-aware is the chicken? Does this self-awareness give it rights? Do rights stem from self-awareness, or from humanness, or is it arbitrary based on a wishy washy feeling of "Hm, that looks too severe. Oh but that other thing, that's okay". Or is how we treat them based purely on how much they can take before the taste becomes too poor for us to bear?
If it was only about avoiding suffering/pain and not the dying, would you be okay with farming children for eating?
They will live happy lives pampered and cared for, running around in the backyard until you press a button and child drops dead. Takes 1 microsecond to die.
It's obviously absurd, but you're making that decision with the animals you eat all the time. A chicken (probably) is less self aware than a cow, but we do eat cows.
But how do you decide that another being is un-self-aware enough to be eaten?
Which takes me back to the absurd. If human meat was tasty (I read it isn't), would someone with downs syndrome be morally ok to eat? How about someone in a vegetative state?
If the sliding scale of self awareness is the deciding factor, we might as well eat less aware humans.
I understand it's an absurd argument but children are sentient and has far more potential than a chicken by being allowed to live out their natural life.
If a child grows up and does nothing more than put together a single shoddy chicken coop that lets water in and falls over in a mild breeze it has infinitely out-performed the chicken. People with disabilities are still infinitely more capable than chickens, cows, most any animal we eat.
There's also the problem of disease transmission too if you really want to hash out the idea. Most diseases don't transfer between species (at least not in catastrophic ways), if we were eating other humans there would be a lot of new diseases we'd need to fight or die from. See also BSE [1] and CJD [2] as examples of problems that occur through cannibalism.
Yeah. I find that when you really think about the ethics of eating meat, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify a position somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. It's similar to the abortion debate, I've adopted a position (pro-choice) that I can't fully defend. The catch is that the sliding scale isn't a strawman, it's incredibly hard to justify an arbitrary line where one side is okay and the other isn't.
Personally, I follow the "rule" of:
What you don't want done to yourself, don't do to others.
Would you mind dying right now? Or would you prefer to stay alive?
Sure, one might argue that once you're dead you don't mind anymore, but while being alive, you usually strongly prefer staying that way.
It's that simple.
It certainly is difficult to determine wheter or not something wants to live, but in the case of chickens we can be fairly sure, as they display somewhat intelligent behaviour, and actively avoid harm.
> Would you mind dying right now? Or would you prefer to stay alive?
Sure I'd prefer to stay alive because I'm curious what happens next. But realistically speaking my death is other people's problem not mine.
Dying is easy. It's other people that suffer the consequences.
Although the process of dying, if drawn out, sounds hella unpleasant. I wouldn't want that part.
If we're talking step into the street and get splattered by a runaway 18-wheeler, instant brain death ... fuck it, not my problem.
If we're talking 8 months of ineffectual chemo followed by 10 hours of drawing my last breath ... I'd rather just shoot myself.
If we're talking normal life vs "eat this pill and aging becomes so slow you will be physically and mentally young well into your 90s followed by death of old age at 140" ... yeah I will definitely take that pill.
I'm not sure that really answers your question but there you go. My views on life and death.
We have things that put things to sleep. Anastasia. I don't hear people complain about operations (except those rare cases). The other option would be C4 that should also be painless. Although you could argue that the pieces of brain still suffer for a moment.
> this animal is happy and thus does not want to be killed
You're assuming this as a premise, which I think may be the root of the problem. Plenty of people don't believe that livestock is intelligent enough to comprehend the idea of death, or really anticipate the future in general. How then would it have a desire about future events?
> Don't these two sentiments exclude each other?
Wanting something to be happy whilst not respecting its autonomy is common amongst humans, so I'd say no. Additionally, killing an animal humanely doesn't cause it to be unhappy, since dead animals are incapable of experiencing emotional states.
I feel like this argument collapses when given any serious thought. Mainly because even without experiencing either, I'd consider drawing a warm bath and cutting your own wrists a very different experience compared to hanging upside down and somebody else cutting your throat.
I've never cut my wrists, but I have experienced substantial rapid blood loss. The injury itself wasn't at all painful, in the moment. Not until much later, waiting to heal. And the experience was actually rather peaceful, rather like methaqualone or diazepam. Except for the freakout about stopping the bleeding, anyway.
It's my understanding that proper kosher/halal slaughter is supposed to be non-traumatic. Because trauma makes the meat taste bad.
In some places 8 hour workday was achieved by union organized strikes, in other places by law decree and in other places by non-unionized workers and employers as an agreement.
The 8 hour workday was made possible by increasing productivity, mostly due to accumulated production capital and technological improvements ...
> The 8 hour workday was made possible by increasing productivity, mostly due to accumulated production capital and technological improvements
I think that's actually also ahistorical. There are some scholars who believe that before industrial revolution, commoners only worked on average 6 hours per day.
You are right, but that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Most preindustrial work was agricultural, and therefore heavily tied to the seasonal cycles of the year. While your comment is factually correct, it conveys the wrong image to the listener. The first thing modern people with white collar lifestyles will think when they hear "average 6 hrs per day" is some sort of utopia where they go to their jobs one hour later and leave one hour earlier.
The experience of those preindustrial laborers would have been closer to being employed in a sweatshop, working 70+hrs per week for 5 months; then being unemployed for the rest of the year. During those lean times, they would split their time between small DIY home improvement projects, unpaid civic duty activities, maybe working small one-off jigs for wealthier neighbours, drinking cheap ale, and in general worring about running out of food before the sweatshops open up again next year.
I am not saying life was easy, but rather, there was no intrinsic reason to bump lifestyle into 70+ hrs sweatshop year round.
My take from "economic transformation" in Czechoslovakia is - if someone promises you to "tighten your belt" now because you will be much better off tomorrow, run! It's bait and switch and the other part is not coming. The same applies to "austerity" in Europe today.
I'm a native Swedish citizen, Sweden is perhaps not a banana republic - but the number of pretty serious oversteps done by the Swedish government due to a mixture of incompetence and the will to please other powerful nations are to many to neglect.
Going on since the forced sterilization, German troop transports, extradition of baltic citizens to the soviet union and seizure of newspapers before publication in the days of the second world war .... continuing to today with the Da Costa case, the Egyptians kidnapped and sent to torture by the CIA with help of the Swedish government, the pediatrician accused of murder, the whole Thomas Quick embarrassment .... the list can be made rather long.
And there is obviously a great deal of pride and prestige put into this case by the attorney, who has not been exactly working their ass off to get the investigation going forward - even bending their own rules quite a bit with the obvious intention to inflict maximum discomfort to Julian Assange - and that makes me distrust their honesty and the entire basis for this case.
"A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial"
Cohort size 43 persons.
My summary: At 12 wk, mean total lesion counts had decreased more in the low-glycemic-load group ( 23.5 +/- 3.9) than in the control group ( 12.0 +/- 3.5).
Hasselblads cameras was used in the Apollo missions. [1]
Twelve hasselblad cameras were left behind on the moons surface.
It was not that many years ago, around y2k or shortly thereafter if I remember correctly, that hasselblad finally decided that digital photography could match the picture quality their cameras achieved using traditional/analog film and started to manufacture digital options for their cameras.
When I look at the pictures from the moon I start to understand why they held a stiff upper lip for so many years.
IIRC there were some internal setbacks in the process towards digital Hasselblads when they changed owners a few times in the late 90's and early 00's. So it wasn't all stiff-upper-lip.
And when they did go digital, it was slightly ridiculous. I mean, the cheapest option of the H3DII which launched in 2007 had 50% more megapixels than the most expensive Canon or Nikon camera you could buy that year. With almost twice the sensor area of a full-format DSLR the pixel count wasn't for show either. One of those low-end H3DII bodies (without a lens) in OK condition goes for more than $2000 today.
This is true, but keep in mind that higher-resolution, bigger digital backs (in comparison with fully integrated dslr cameras) were already on the market.
Even so, Hasselblad lead that market for a time, then lost ground due to flagging innovation, bad decisions, etc.
As a photographer, I sometimes think my complete switch to digital might have been a mistake. I can't call myself a professional photohrapher because I make very little money off my pictures.
That said, I wish I didn't get rid of my old cameras, and 2.8 lenses. I wish I still had my BW darkroom still set up in my closet.
My pictures are all color now. They are technically fine, but my older pictures just look more interesting.
I'm a complete amateur at photography, but can you give me some details in the difference in outcomes between your BW setup and just passing your color pictures through a BW filter?
the fact that the government (NASA) used them, only proves they were settling to sell their equipment for less (it's usually more in invoice, but less when you account what you lost on red tape)
It was earlier than that. I remember a relative owning an Apple QuickTake in the mid 90s and Wikipedia reckons they went on sale in ’94: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake . I personally had a Samsung digital camera in 1998; it took a max of 128Mb SmartMedia cards.
I sold cameras from 90-91 and we were selling the first DSLR during that period. Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, just that we referred to it as "The Brick" because it weighed 2-3 times as much as the next comparable SLR, cost even more, and the pictures weren't nearly as good.
According to the statistic available the number of drowning accidents among children and sale of ice-cream is highly correlated, we must take measures to lower sale of ice-cream, please think of the children!
Most of the time a journalist will easily believe a statement like above and rewrite into a newspaper article.
And soon thereafter official recommendations and legislation will follow.
I'm looking forward to http://nusi.org/ publishing some results, they appear to be intellectual honest.
I'm always wary of articles that try to support their point by showing some ridiculous correlations. It's very easy to look at thousands of correlations and select the few most ridiculous, ignoring the vast amount of them that maybe make sense. Suddenly it seems like statistics are irrelevant and we cannot trust anything. I suppose that nobody is free from personal bias since even Fisher, yes the great statistician, rejected correlation between smoking and lung cancer as a spurious correlation (look up in Wikipedia)
> It's very easy to look at thousands of correlations and select the few most ridiculous, ignoring the vast amount of them that maybe make sense.
The reality is in fact reverse. Out of thousands of correlations you could pick, only very few actually make sense. It's trivially easy to find - or accidentally stumble upon - a meaningless correlation.
Drowning accidents and the sale of ice cream probably have a common causal factor -- warm weather. A lot of the correlations in the article are a lot weirder and harder to explain.
Someone who can do the proselytism, take initiatives to drive the adaption and at the same time be the go to guy for the technical knowledge needed for any new processes/tools.
We all agree that the old waterfall inspired way of working when the developers work on their own, throws a bunch of new code down a hatch for the ops guys to deploy and they both blame the other team when something don't work is less than desirable.
Maybe there are some startups that have the devops mindset already from the beginning and a few old companies that can get there on there own, but I think many need some help to get there. Perhaps they could hire someone to get them started?