3 ms·
The idea that words themselves can be harmful is ridiculous. People create and use words. The people who say words can be harmful, if they are presenting facts
by kordless 10y ago
The idea that words themselves can be harmful is ridiculous. People create and use words. The people who say words can be harmful, if they are presenting facts in the way they see them, as opposed to the way they are observed in reality. Stop attacking words and start addressing those who use them in a harmful and dissonance creating way.
The reason people become polarized over a given subject, especially when it's boiled down to a single term, is because we all have different perceptions based on our roles and responsibilities. The term "serverless" can be applied to the users of a given application. Gmail is "serverless" for me, but not Google. For Google ops, Gmail is definately "server" based. Flipping terms, by those who seek additional resources for themselves, their company and their limited partners, is simply a means to hide the truth of the matter behind running their software.
To achieve infrastructure which is trustworthy and not owned by self, we must implement trusted architectures which can adapt to changing conditions and provide fault tolerance to a given level for an immediate cost. Docker has barely scratched the surface of what must be done to address these architectural requirements. The unfortunate bit is that their business model is likely to take them in the opposite direction of where we need to go with all this. That's just the way innovation works when it's driven by VC capital.
- kowdermeister 10y agoThere are harmful words in use, but obviously it needs a user base to spread, the two can't live without each other. I'm not talking about swear words, but words that offend or misinform people or summarize a concept that can be harmful or generate controversy. Take web 2.0 for example. It caused quite a stir because nobody was sure what's 1.0 vs 2.0 was, then it faded away. I consider homeopathy a harmful word too. It sounds innocent, memorable and somewhat legit, but it's a dangerous thing. I think that if many people point out that a word is pointless, inaccurate and deceptive, then that user base can fade too, therefore it makes sense to attack the word and not go ad hominem on the users. > Gmail is "serverless" for me, but not Google. Thanks for bringing this up, for me as a user, gmail is nothing but a webapp for an email server. So is SaaS a better category for it or serverless? Without net connection (to a server) it's pretty useless. Even from the user point of view it's not clear what the term should cover. After all, we should focus on the technology, because that's promising at least.