I appreciate the explanation, and as multiple obviously-irritated k8s contributors have come in to counteract my other comments, I admit I have been curious how

I appreciate the explanation, and as multiple obviously-irritated k8s contributors have come in to counteract my other comments, I admit I have been curious how long HN would be willing to withstand the pressure from beings so highly-regarded and attached to such prestigious institutions. Surely, it is not wise to irritate powerful persons, especially not with semi-credible lambasts that affect an important centerpiece of their corporate strategy (k8s is part of the strategy to transition people to Google Cloud as opposed to AWS). This is also good supporting evidence for the amount of SV heterodoxy that HN-the-institution is willing to stomach (that topic was broached last time we crossed paths). Are perennial, cycle-of-life topics not expected to regularly appear on discussion platforms? I find it grating to see "k8s this, k8s that" all the time. Should I register a complaint as well, so that these threads can be killed next time they come up, on the theory that "many are bored" by the topic, based on the existence of my complaint? Specifically, which things are not allowed to be mentioned in the future? Was it: point 1, "Please consider whether you need k8s before you use it"; point 2, "Please don't run a database inside Kubernetes"; or point 3, "Yes, the software world is hardly manageable due to the unintended effects exposed by GitHub and friends"? Which of these is too tedious and boring to express on HN? I definitely would understand if only the flamebait comment were off-topic'd, as I know that was close to the edge. I'm more worried by the fact that counterpoints that are apparently "boring" or "tedious" justify censorship.