3 ms·

Trying to debug why our app in the container isn't working is not fun at all. My experience with AWS was similar, and I got to a point where I had to stop acce

Trying to debug why our app in the container isn't working is not fun at all. My experience with AWS was similar, and I got to a point where I had to stop accepting clients who had built (or insisted on building) their infrastructure on AWS. It actually kind of reminds me of a pyramid scheme where they ensnare you with a seemingly good deal, but in order to get that you've gotta buy in just a little (time, cost, etc) more and more -- just to be able to debug -- and more until you're calculating sunk costs[1] bigger than any company should have to spend on something as trivial as, say, a Wordpress site. It's highly unlikely that 95 percent of the SMB websites out there need the overkill of AWS infrastructure / EC. Do a cost benefit analysis.

user5994461 10y ago
You entirely missed the point. AWS is not relevant. All the issues are coming from docker.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  I think you missed his point. He was speaking generally about the costs of working on new tech stacks that other people just accept.
  - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
    My reply is off-topic, but I cannot resist. > I think you missed his point. He was speaking generally [..] shawnee_ --> hackeress.com > What is a hackeress? > A hackeress is a female hacker. Bad form to assume all people are males in this domain (or even the majority for that matter, regardless of the actual statistics). Use the form "they" when referring to someone whose gender (or gender identity) is unknown to you. Or check their profiles ;) 2¢
    - striking 10y ago
      I think the assumption arose not from the demographic of people on Hacker News, but from the username of that poster. "Shawn" is a fairly common name, where one in every 2000 people will be named it. [1] Meanwhile, "Shawnee" is a really rare name[2], one you may not be aware of if you didn't grow up in the US (or in particular parts thereof). (Apparently only 4000 of them are alive today!) Just as an aside, using "they" by default can be very confusing, especially when plurals are involved. I use it sometimes, but prefer to use the passive voice instead ("the parent poster", etc.) I definitely do not have time to check every person's profile when I comment on HN. 1: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawn http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawn 2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawnee&rawformassumption=%7B%22C%22,+%22shawnee%22%7D+-%3E+%7B%22GivenName%22%7D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawnee&rawformassumpti...
      - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
        Thanks for pointing out where the name confusion may have come from. > I definitely do not have time to check every person's profile when I comment on HN. At least then we should not make explicit such gender assumptions, regardless. I have never heard the name "Shawnee" and generally do not assume usernames on web forums are indicative of real-life anything (e.g. you are 'striking', but apparently that is not your name). I agree 'they' is an awkward construction in English, but for many people the alternative using passive voice is a little more complex to use (cf. non-native English speakers).
        striking 10y ago
        As a Polish immigrant, I personally think "singular they" is worse, because it creates ambiguity where there doesn't need to be any... which makes things a bit more confusing. Meanwhile, I think my proposed alternative is native to most other languages, and should translate fairly easily. I'm not sure I see the point in thinking this long and hard about pronouns, but to each his own.
        klodolph 10y ago
        Yes indeed, to each their own. The singular "they" can be confusing in certain cases, but that's not really a problem unique to "they". "He", "she", "it", "we", and "you" can all be confusing in relatively common circumstances. But you're going to have to get used to the singular "they", because it seems to only be getting more common (historically, singular "they" was acceptable until the late 19th century, so the strictly plural "they" might be seen as a 20th century anomaly).

user5994461 10y ago

You entirely missed the point. AWS is not relevant. All the issues are coming from docker.

AlexB138 10y ago
I think you missed his point. He was speaking generally about the costs of working on new tech stacks that other people just accept.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  My reply is off-topic, but I cannot resist. > I think you missed his point. He was speaking generally [..] shawnee_ --> hackeress.com > What is a hackeress? > A hackeress is a female hacker. Bad form to assume all people are males in this domain (or even the majority for that matter, regardless of the actual statistics). Use the form "they" when referring to someone whose gender (or gender identity) is unknown to you. Or check their profiles ;) 2¢
  - striking 10y ago
    I think the assumption arose not from the demographic of people on Hacker News, but from the username of that poster. "Shawn" is a fairly common name, where one in every 2000 people will be named it. [1] Meanwhile, "Shawnee" is a really rare name[2], one you may not be aware of if you didn't grow up in the US (or in particular parts thereof). (Apparently only 4000 of them are alive today!) Just as an aside, using "they" by default can be very confusing, especially when plurals are involved. I use it sometimes, but prefer to use the passive voice instead ("the parent poster", etc.) I definitely do not have time to check every person's profile when I comment on HN. 1: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawn http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawn 2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawnee&rawformassumption=%7B%22C%22,+%22shawnee%22%7D+-%3E+%7B%22GivenName%22%7D http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=shawnee&rawformassumpti...
    - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
      Thanks for pointing out where the name confusion may have come from. > I definitely do not have time to check every person's profile when I comment on HN. At least then we should not make explicit such gender assumptions, regardless. I have never heard the name "Shawnee" and generally do not assume usernames on web forums are indicative of real-life anything (e.g. you are 'striking', but apparently that is not your name). I agree 'they' is an awkward construction in English, but for many people the alternative using passive voice is a little more complex to use (cf. non-native English speakers).
      - striking 10y ago
        As a Polish immigrant, I personally think "singular they" is worse, because it creates ambiguity where there doesn't need to be any... which makes things a bit more confusing. Meanwhile, I think my proposed alternative is native to most other languages, and should translate fairly easily. I'm not sure I see the point in thinking this long and hard about pronouns, but to each his own.
        klodolph 10y ago
        Yes indeed, to each their own. The singular "they" can be confusing in certain cases, but that's not really a problem unique to "they". "He", "she", "it", "we", and "you" can all be confusing in relatively common circumstances. But you're going to have to get used to the singular "they", because it seems to only be getting more common (historically, singular "they" was acceptable until the late 19th century, so the strictly plural "they" might be seen as a 20th century anomaly).