> Admittedly, I've been using Kubernetes since the early days and I manage an Infra team
I think this is where the big difference is. If you're leading a team and introduced all good practices from the start, then the k8s and Terraform or whatever config files can never get so very complicated that a Gordian knot isn't created.
Perhaps k8s is nice and easy to use - many of the commands certainly are, in my experience.
Developers have, over years and decades, learned how to navigate code and hop from definition to definition, climbing the tree and learning the language they're operating in, and most of the languages follow similar-enough patterns that they can crawl around.
Configuring a k8s cluster has absolutely none of that knowledge built up; and, reading something that has rough practices is not a good place to learn what it should look like.
Thank you. I can always xargs grep for a function name, at worst. Dir() in python at a debugger for other things. With YAML, kubernetes and other devops hotness, I frequently can’t even find the relevant scripts/YAML that are executed nor their codebases.
This also happens with configuration based packaging setups. Python hatch in particular, but sometimes node/webpack/rollup/vite.
I think this is only true if the original k8s cluster you're operating against was written by an expert and laid out as such.
If you're entering into k8s land with someone else's very complicated mess across hundreds of files, you're going to be in for a bad time.
A big problem, I feel, is that if you don't have an expert design the k8s system from the start, it's just going to be a horrible time; and, many people, when they're asked to set up a k8s setup for their startup or whatever, aren't already experts, so the thing that's produced is not maintainable.
Thanks to kubernetes "flattening" that mess into somewhat flat object map (I like to call it a blackboard system :D) it can be reasonably easy to figure out what's the desired state and what's the current state for given cluster, even if the files are a mess.
However...
Talking with people who started using kubernetes later than me[1], it seems like a lot of confusion starts by trying to start with somewhat complete example like using a Deployment + Ingress + Services to deploy, well, a typical web application. The stuff that would be trivial to run in typical PaaS.
The problem is that then you do not know what a lot of those magic incantations mean, and the actually very, very simple mechanism of how things work in k8s are lost, and you can't find your way in a running cluster.
[1] I started learning around 1.0, went with dev deployment with 1.3, graduated it to prod with 1.4. Smooth sailing since[2]
[2] The worst issues since involved dealing with what was actually global GCP networking outage that we were extra sensitive to due to extensive DNS use in kubernetes, and once naively assuming that the people before me set sensible sizes for various nodes, only to find a combination of too small to live EC2 instances choking till control plane death, and outdated etcd (because the rest of the company twas too conservative in updating) getting into rare but possible bug that corrupted data which was triggered by the flapping caused by too small instances. Neither I count as k8s issue, would have killed anything else I could setup given the same constraints.
Sure, but it’d be a lot more interesting and challenging to build a 100 visualizations where each gives a unique insight of the same dataset. An isometric 3d bar chart is just going through the motions.
Ah yes. Lies. That's why it was the first place I learned about just how bad the atrocities in Gaza were; just how bad the damage of Hurricane Helene was; about the murder of George Floyd.
Social networks are the most democratized ways of spreading information to date. Some of that information is lies, but a lot of people spread fact.
I’m not sure that citing three things that the traditional media has been happy to report on too is a very good way of making your point. The real danger is the content you don’t see:
“A [Rutgers Univerity] study […] asserts TikTok’s algorithms promote Chinese Communist Party narratives and suppress content critical of those narrative“
Is that the same article that Last Week Tonight brought up in their expose on TikTok where they brought up some very valid questions about the method used in that study?
Fox News and OAN has taught us that even news agencies and journalism aren't the way to guarantee fact or truth.
Yellow Journalism is a term for over 100 years ago. People lying with a broad audience is nothing new.
addendum: and how many times have you read a news article from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal that's in your area of expertise that's made you go "wow, everything they've said here is wrong, said with an agenda, misinterpreted or other propaganda"?
Sure, news agencies aren't a way to guarrantee truth. That has always been a problem.
But social networks have increased that problem by an order of magnitude. And we're seeing the results - the rise of dictatorships all around the world, that use the lie spreading capability of social networks.
I forget where I heard it last night; but yes, that is something to consider. Every time there's been a new way for a new and different wave of people to communicate with the masses that there has been a rise in populism and dictatorships around the world. Happened with the printing press, radio, with television and now it's social media's turn, yes.
We as a collection of societies, worldwide, have not grown our broad-range antibodies/protections against such things, yet.
bingo, and this is why I'm spending more time watching local news than national/global news or social media posts from other nations. there's a higher trust factor with stuff you can see and touch.
you can easily find which of your local stations are owned by sinclair. for example, in seattle sinclair owns KOMO, which is quite annoying because that channel plays jeopardy/seahawks special segments.
The odds of LLMs being used to produce content on HN is a number approaching 100%.
The odds of LLMs being trained / queried against data scraped from HN or HNSearch is even closer to 100%.
I know you don't like the "LLMs are allowed..." part, but they're here and they literally cannot be gotten rid of. However, this rule,
> As soon as possible, people should be made aware if they are interacting with, or their activity is being seen by, a LLM. Consider using line prefixes, channel topics, or channel entry messages.
Could be something that is strongly encouraged and helpful, and possibly the "good" LLM users would follow it.
True! And chances are, if you're developing website software or video game software, you'll never think about these sorts of things, it'll just be a dumb pipe for you, still.
And that's okay!
But there are other sorts of computer people than website writers and business application devs, and they're some of the people this would be interesting for!
>True! And chances are, if you're developing website software or video game software, you'll never think about these sorts of things, it'll just be a dumb pipe for you, still.
Wrong. I've experienced most of the complaints in the paper when developing multiplayer video games. These days I simply use websockets instead of raw TCP because it is not worth the effort and yet you still have to do manual heartbeats.
Among my extended family, cousins, etc yes. Everyone has more square footage. Even double or triple. Even those that don't make six figures or live in Europe have much larger living spaces.
rationally, budgets are constrained. any process that increases the number of potential tax payers is good. reassignment surgeries are elective, those receiving them do not pay more taxes, so priority should be given to fertility treatments.
Gender affirming care, including surgeries, increases the quality of life of transgender individuals, which can help make them more productive and even patriotic members of society and which can encourage other transgender individuals and those that believe in transgender rights into the country, potentially overall improving overall throughput and profit and taxes to pay for it all.
In the ideal world there would be resources enough for everything.
But that's never gonna happen. Funding for Healthcare is limited. There can't be a truly universal healthcare.
Now on one hand you have infertility, leading to more than 10% of families struggling. This makes two members of a family struggle mentally. Also the lack of child will have societal impact (economical cultural etc).
On the other hand you have elective gender reassignment. It certainly impacts the quality of life of the person receiving it, but that's it.
Note that we are not talking about a homosexual couple trying to have a child. No. Right now the ocncern is gender reassignment for under aged children! Whether school should inform parents or not! In what universe this can have higher priority?
> What is the policy and vision of those who oppose any deportation of illegal immigrants
The United States has a hilariously complicated historical relationship with immigrants.
* They are constantly the scapegoat of economic hardship, for one.
* We pendulum back and forth over the decades and even centuries on "immigrants good" and "immigrants" bad[0]
* In our regular swinging back and forth; and *ESPECIALLY* regarding people who were children when they came to the States, we have special-cased and threw under the rug literal millions of people without creating robust systems in place for the now 40-, 50- or 60-year old people who have literally built lives here that were brought over by their parents at ages 2... 3... etc. For those people especially, it's not a "go back to where you came from" sort of easy (though rude) statement. They have no where else. They lived here their whole lives and we've swept them under the rug. It is a national failing on our part.
* We regularly and randomly grant clemency to various illegal immigrants that further perpetuates the cycle of increasing our numbers of legally dubious presences of people in the US.
ALL OF THIS creates huge and complicated situations in the current political climate where we can't give naturalization/citizenship/whatever to these multiple millions of people because it would be rude or unfair or something.
Long story short, the United States ignores our real immigration situation; and, has for so, so, so long that not a single solution to it outside of pure clemency will result in anything but destroyed lives; and while some people may say (ignoring ALL the logistic ridiculousness / literal genocide that it may cost) "it's a bandaid we need to rip off" and ruin the lives of the 10s of millions of people we would shove back and the 100s of millions or more people that would be directly impacted by their deportation, others remember that each of those 10s of millions of people are a person with lives and the value inherent in every person, and should be treated as such.
Addendum: to answer the question directly, I would argue: immediate green-card status or similar to all Latin American individuals who have stayed here long term under DACA or any of the other previous status-dubious systems we've placed them under and either considering their existing time as time spent for citizenship purposes, or immediately starting their "Time in US" potential citizenship timeline. We can choose to close the borders again later. I care less about that than I do the many that are already here in their state of limbo.
[0] To be very clear, when politicians, etc, say immigrants, in almost every circumstance, it's code for Latin American immigrants. If someone says something along the lines of "Oh, I immigrated from Ireland" or "my family is German", there's an internal thought from many Americans of "Oh, we're not talking about you" or "oh, but you came here legally", even if most illegal immigrants are Visa overstays.
This comment would be perfect in the mouth of an ordinary politician, there is this, there is this other, we are ruining lives, etc.
Now, this is a comment on a forum, but I was asking, what is the policy/vision, and I can never get a straight answer.
Let's say that in the last few years 5 million (maybe, who knows) people have entered the United States illegally, and as I see it, that is irresponsible, illegal, immoral. Now, if you propose to do something about this situation, which would ordinarily be “you are illegal, you have to go back and apply through the regular channels,” the charade of families who have been here for 50 years and are undocumented begins. Smoke, fog, “other things are more important.” The inevitable history lesson, Ellis Island, what about the Italian mafia? All nonsense.
I still cannot figure out from those in favor of (illegal) immigration a vision or policy. The only transparent ones are those who say that because some of these immigrants are paid much less than citizens or legal immigrants for certain jobs, it benefits "the economy" to have them here. Everyone else just presents their mood affiliation.
I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration. Most people, I would argue, would say "if you just came across the border illegally, you should be sent back".
So there really __isn't__ an argument there, as far as I know, outside of the position that we should have a fully open border, which I believe is not a mainstream position.
*But*, that is *not* what people are actually talking about when they're talking illegal immigration. They're talking about the people who are already here, the regular scapegoats, so any conversation that talks about illegal immigration is going to necessarily talk about the people that have stayed here, and it's a smoke-screen for harming those individuals.
Funny, a lot of the people complaining about illegal immigration aren't even talking about illegal immigrants, but are scapegoating, again, the people on agricultural visas, etc.
But this whole conversation could be much more interesting if, instead of presenting a critical analysis of the language used by pro- or anti-immigration groups, some policies were discussed.
For example, one might say that undocumented people with no criminal records who have been here for more than x years, would be given documents. All the others will be deported. Then, one might discuss the merits of x years instead of z years, but it would be a starting point.
"I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration" -- all those who are against deporting illegals, support illegal immigration. One cannot say with a straight face, well, I am of course against illegal immigration, but since they are already here..."Sure, I am against homicides but since the guy is already dead..."
> I wonder how nobody talks about moral considerations of this atrocity.
There has been a lot of talk about how immoral this is; but if you're not seeing it anymore, it's because the people in the spaces you learn from have given up. The people that don't want it *know* it's horrible and immoral and terrifying and evil and will result in enormous casualties of many, many, *many* of the proposed 20M as well as many many many of their friends and family.
I think this is where the big difference is. If you're leading a team and introduced all good practices from the start, then the k8s and Terraform or whatever config files can never get so very complicated that a Gordian knot isn't created.
Perhaps k8s is nice and easy to use - many of the commands certainly are, in my experience.
Developers have, over years and decades, learned how to navigate code and hop from definition to definition, climbing the tree and learning the language they're operating in, and most of the languages follow similar-enough patterns that they can crawl around.
Configuring a k8s cluster has absolutely none of that knowledge built up; and, reading something that has rough practices is not a good place to learn what it should look like.
reply