19 ms·

Update from Chef

251 points by kyoob 7y ago

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous admins? hypocrisy x10 I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  The creator of Ansible's thoughts on this situation: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874
  - rlt 7y ago
    This seems like poor form coming from a competitor.
    - amyjess 7y ago
      He could've told people to switch to Ansible, but he didn't. In fact, he's explicitly telling people not to switch and suggesting they fork Chef instead: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792
      - cyanmide 7y ago
        Michael hasn’t had anything to do with Ansible for the last few years.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Virtue signal much? How does RedHat's parent company, IBM, feel about all this?
- Jonnax 7y ago
  It's interesting how sincerely using the phrase "fake news" says so much about a person. What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
  - sarcasmatwork 7y ago
    It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for. What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - knd775 7y ago
      In regards to anonymous sources, what do you want them to do? Most sources need to stay unnamed, or they cease to be sources (and no future sources come forward). Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
- etchalon 7y ago
  Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
    - human20190310 7y ago
      If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
      - koolba 7y ago
        > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
        etchalon 7y ago
        There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
- anon9001 7y ago
  You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy: In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date. I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing? Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans. Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy. Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common. If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way. If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well. In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect. That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware. Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration. edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.
minimaxir 7y ago
Another reminder that bad press and community/customer pressure indeed works. And there's nothing wrong with that.
- qsymmachus 7y ago
  Direct action gets the goods!
- endianswap 7y ago
  Eh, maybe? It "worked" in that they're choosing to not renew the contracts over the next year, but he admitted that over the last year employees have been fighting for this and have been ignored until now, which is pretty shitty. For revenue that appears to be only $95k USD (the amount they're earning from the contract that they're instead going to match to charity)? https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/1176155955173552133 https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/1176155955173552133
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    There are two ways to get something right: 1) The first time 2) Later than that They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms. “Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Also: 1. Insufficiently. 2. Sufficiently. The question is on this aspect.
    - krainboltgreene 7y ago
      > They did the second. No, I disagree. What they have done is literally the minimum amount of effort. The right thing to do is not to "continue to do what we're doing, offering a passive promise to not get more money."
not_enough 7y ago
Good, but not enough. They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.
- prepend 7y ago
  I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.
  - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
    /s ? Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
    - prepend 7y ago
      Only because the harm caused by Coca Cola is magnitudes worse. Coke has been operating for 100 years. ICE isn’t even 29 years old.
  - tylermac1 7y ago
    That's quite the stretch. Equating the moral issue of detaining children indefinitely to producing a beverage is really something.
    - ng12 7y ago
      This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.
INTPenis 7y ago
That's harsh. Once you're dug into a conf mgmt system it's hard to dig yourself out. I've never used Chef myself but I have noticed some message board posts lately claiming it's dead in the water and Ansible is the victor. I've used Ansible since it came out, came straight from Puppet, so I'm biased. But I don't care what you use, as long as it works.
- aleph- 7y ago
  Is it hard to dig yourself out though?
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    1. If there is nobody who knows how the previous conf mgmt system was configured, or how the technology works. 2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer. We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.
  - outworlder 7y ago
    > Is it hard to dig yourself out though? It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc). But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you. One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.
- brenden2 7y ago
  I used to use Chef, have mostly switched to Ansible. Not sure about "dead in the water" but my experience has been that Ansible is a better tool.
commandlinefan 7y ago
Isn't chef open source? This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party.
- ng12 7y ago
  Obviously. Same thing with Palantir -- ICE could just move their data to a different solution. This isn't about affecting change, it's about feeling good about ourselves.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost. If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc. Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.
75dvtwin 7y ago
Seems like sabotage, blackmail and mob justice works well, and has a non-trivial network effect. Very powerful, actually. Anything that powerful, will get regulated (probably, after several court battles). Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins.
- sneak 7y ago
  Taking down something you have published from your website is not “sabotage”. In fact, a web server responds to each client request; taking something down is simply failing to reply to future requests. Past page loads do not obligate you to serve future ones.
  - 75dvtwin 7y ago
    Taking down a software dependency, knowing that it will break production software build/release process -- is sabotage. Allowing dependent users to make a copy, and making this say 2-3 week allowance -- would be appropriate.
    - sneak 7y ago
      Absolutely not. Serving a webpage request on Monday does absolutely nothing to obligate you to serve that same request again on Tuesday. The responsibility is that of the fetcher to cache or mirror as required.
- camel_Snake 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on how freedoms of US citizens were reduced in this scenario?
  - 75dvtwin 7y ago
    Sure, WRT my comment: > Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins. US Gov will likely start blacklisting of companies and business associated of companies that succomb to this behavior. This, overall will shift billions of dollars to a fewer set of companies. Anytime, power is concentrated in several mega-corps, ability to compete freely is reduced. Fewer choices for paths of economic progress, fewer freedoms. I am also almost 100% sure any new contract with US Gov will include clauses that will address this in a way, that doing govtech, and hiring contractors/employees for govtech businesses will be even harder. -- Alternatively, if the mob justice wins -- then hiring/firing people based on their views on Immigration/Abortion/Religions Freedoms/etc -- will be the norm. Either way, US citizens loose.... That was my point.
briffle 7y ago
I don't know much about chef (have used ansible and salt-stack). In a previous story, it talked about how a developer removed his code from a repository of Ruby Gems that chef uses, and broke many systems that had that as a dependency. And that Chef then "fixed the issue" after a bit of time. I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?
- Four8Five 7y ago
  They fixed the issue by literally forking and removing his name from everything.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    Um. Do you mean that they directly took the existing code and took his name out of it? That would be a pretty big no-no from a copyright perspective. (But it also wouldn't do anything, so I assume I'm misunderstanding)
    - davidcelis 7y ago
      They removed his name from everywhere _except_ the license notices. Which is kinda worse.
crispyporkbites 7y ago
I assume they pay taxes in america? Shouldn’t they also move the company to a different country and stop employing American citizens?
AzzieElbab 7y ago
This kind of making IBM look smart wrt to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
ARandomerDude 7y ago
The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP. We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.
- prolepunk 7y ago
  I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. No police brutality, racial profiling and horrendous record on institutionalized racism is not the same as 'No police'. Everyone is for community policing. As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
  - ARandomerDude 7y ago
    > I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. Here's a good example: > As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      There is a quite rational position in determining that there is some point of no return at which something -- an organisation, company, government department, movement -- goes past the point of return or acceptance, and becomes dead to you. You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies. You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.
ProAm 7y ago
Who is Barry? (legitimate question) Im assuming head of sales at Chef? After a quick search on Twitter and Youtube he's the CEO
nvahalik 7y ago
> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office. Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?
- kungtotte 7y ago
  So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions? Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Were you this outraged about the conditions when Obama was in office?
    - kungtotte 7y ago
      I don't live in the US, so I was not exposed to this issue until it became a big news item outside the US which happened after Trump came into office. So the answer is no, I wasn't because I was unable to be outraged due to my lack of information.
    - staticassertion 7y ago
      I will not defend Obama's administration, or Bush's, but it's disingenuous to call out previous admins for new policies. Here is Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance policy". https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-ze... This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy. This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so. edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.
buboard 7y ago
I love this kind of free-market activism. I just wish people didnt force people to bake cakes
- tracker1 7y ago
  I'm not sure that I agree on liking this... the direction things can go, such as payment processors acting as censors, etc. can get pretty Orwellian.
  - buboard 7y ago
    businesses can have ideologies. the problem is when there aren't alternatives, or can't be alternatives because of regulation
abnoxae 7y ago
I really don't understand how can people associate a tool with an ideology. Do we stop manufacturing cars because it helps support many unfavorable people/organizations?
- dominicr 7y ago
  Car manufacturers are not really accurate metaphors as it is CBP and ICE themselves who are carrying out actions that many people strongly disagree with. Whereas a car company has no control over its customers If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them. There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  IBM got a lot of deserved grief for working with Germany in the 1940s. Arms manufacturers are rightly shamed for some of their customers. I'm somewhat certain your beef is with the idea of that specific organisation being considered bad, not with the reaction to that determination.
cfv 7y ago
So much pearl clutching and "but Obama" in this thread. You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public. The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.
- ng12 7y ago
  I think it is reasonable to point out the hypocrisy. By the numbers, Obama was just as tough on our southern border.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    It strikes me as a sort of whataboutism
    - ng12 7y ago
      I'm beginning to hate this term. It's recent popularity has a tendency to turn everything into a reductionist argument. It shuts down discussion about the bigger picture or broad ideals in favor of a very narrow band of discourse.
      - Jach 7y ago
        Join the club! One useful phrase to keep in mind is "Chinese Robber Fallacy"[0] (edit: and for more than just spotting questionable uses of "whataboutism"[1]). It's "where you use a generic problem to attack a specific person or group, even though other groups have the problem just as much (or even more so)." Of course if you engage in this sort of "fallacy fallacy!" argument style, you rapidly get far from the discussion on the actual topic. The best move is probably just not to play. [0] https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/03/08/the-chinese-robber-fallacy/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/03/08/the-chinese-robber... [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chin...
      - 7y ago
user5994461 7y ago
Summary: "After deep introspection and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts." What's ICE and CBP?
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs and Border Protection.
  - user5994461 7y ago
    Thank you very much.
StreamBright 7y ago
>> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Seeking asylum is not a crime.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Who said it was? You can go to any ____legal____ port of entry of the United States and apply for asylum. There is 2.3% chance for a Mexican to get it granted (based on 2015 data). The problem is when people try to cross the border illegally (which is a crime) dragging their children along. Not too surprisingly this is what the US CBP people want to stop.
jdm2212 7y ago
I'm curious with choices like this: how, concretely, does this change anything for the better? Was Chef on the critical path for any of ICE's distasteful work? If not, which part of the agency (and in support of which mission) was Chef working with, and is it good to impair that?
quotemstr 7y ago
Good. Actions like Chef's create a business opportunity for the rest of us. There's nothing wrong with working with defense and security sector. When SV companies refuse to enter this sector, they create a vacuum for others to fill and profit. This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality? Thank you, Chef.
stefantalpalaru 7y ago
> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles/ https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castle... : «“If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he’s illegal, we can make him disappear.” Those chilling words were spoken by James Pendergraph, then executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of State and Local Coordination, at a conference of police and sheriffs in August 2008.»

251 points by kyoob 7y ago

Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous admins? hypocrisy x10 I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
The creator of Ansible's thoughts on this situation: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874
- rlt 7y ago
  This seems like poor form coming from a competitor.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    He could've told people to switch to Ansible, but he didn't. In fact, he's explicitly telling people not to switch and suggesting they fork Chef instead: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792
    - cyanmide 7y ago
      Michael hasn’t had anything to do with Ansible for the last few years.
- turk73 7y ago
  Virtue signal much? How does RedHat's parent company, IBM, feel about all this?
Jonnax 7y ago
It's interesting how sincerely using the phrase "fake news" says so much about a person. What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
- sarcasmatwork 7y ago
  It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for. What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - knd775 7y ago
    In regards to anonymous sources, what do you want them to do? Most sources need to stay unnamed, or they cease to be sources (and no future sources come forward). Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
etchalon 7y ago
Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
  - human20190310 7y ago
    If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
    - koolba 7y ago
      > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
      - etchalon 7y ago
        There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
anon9001 7y ago
You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy: In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date. I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing? Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans. Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy. Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common. If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way. If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well. In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect. That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware. Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration. edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.

minimaxir 7y ago

Another reminder that bad press and community/customer pressure indeed works. And there's nothing wrong with that.

qsymmachus 7y ago
Direct action gets the goods!
endianswap 7y ago
Eh, maybe? It "worked" in that they're choosing to not renew the contracts over the next year, but he admitted that over the last year employees have been fighting for this and have been ignored until now, which is pretty shitty. For revenue that appears to be only $95k USD (the amount they're earning from the contract that they're instead going to match to charity)? https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/1176155955173552133 https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/1176155955173552133
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  There are two ways to get something right: 1) The first time 2) Later than that They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms. “Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Also: 1. Insufficiently. 2. Sufficiently. The question is on this aspect.
  - krainboltgreene 7y ago
    > They did the second. No, I disagree. What they have done is literally the minimum amount of effort. The right thing to do is not to "continue to do what we're doing, offering a passive promise to not get more money."

not_enough 7y ago

Good, but not enough. They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.

prepend 7y ago
I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
  /s ? Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
  - prepend 7y ago
    Only because the harm caused by Coca Cola is magnitudes worse. Coke has been operating for 100 years. ICE isn’t even 29 years old.
- tylermac1 7y ago
  That's quite the stretch. Equating the moral issue of detaining children indefinitely to producing a beverage is really something.
  - ng12 7y ago
    This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.

INTPenis 7y ago

That's harsh. Once you're dug into a conf mgmt system it's hard to dig yourself out. I've never used Chef myself but I have noticed some message board posts lately claiming it's dead in the water and Ansible is the victor. I've used Ansible since it came out, came straight from Puppet, so I'm biased. But I don't care what you use, as long as it works.

aleph- 7y ago
Is it hard to dig yourself out though?
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  1. If there is nobody who knows how the previous conf mgmt system was configured, or how the technology works. 2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer. We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > Is it hard to dig yourself out though? It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc). But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you. One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.
brenden2 7y ago
I used to use Chef, have mostly switched to Ansible. Not sure about "dead in the water" but my experience has been that Ansible is a better tool.

commandlinefan 7y ago

Isn't chef open source? This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party.

ng12 7y ago
Obviously. Same thing with Palantir -- ICE could just move their data to a different solution. This isn't about affecting change, it's about feeling good about ourselves.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost. If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc. Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.

75dvtwin 7y ago

Seems like sabotage, blackmail and mob justice works well, and has a non-trivial network effect. Very powerful, actually. Anything that powerful, will get regulated (probably, after several court battles). Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins.

sneak 7y ago
Taking down something you have published from your website is not “sabotage”. In fact, a web server responds to each client request; taking something down is simply failing to reply to future requests. Past page loads do not obligate you to serve future ones.
- 75dvtwin 7y ago
  Taking down a software dependency, knowing that it will break production software build/release process -- is sabotage. Allowing dependent users to make a copy, and making this say 2-3 week allowance -- would be appropriate.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Absolutely not. Serving a webpage request on Monday does absolutely nothing to obligate you to serve that same request again on Tuesday. The responsibility is that of the fetcher to cache or mirror as required.
camel_Snake 7y ago
Can you elaborate on how freedoms of US citizens were reduced in this scenario?
- 75dvtwin 7y ago
  Sure, WRT my comment: > Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins. US Gov will likely start blacklisting of companies and business associated of companies that succomb to this behavior. This, overall will shift billions of dollars to a fewer set of companies. Anytime, power is concentrated in several mega-corps, ability to compete freely is reduced. Fewer choices for paths of economic progress, fewer freedoms. I am also almost 100% sure any new contract with US Gov will include clauses that will address this in a way, that doing govtech, and hiring contractors/employees for govtech businesses will be even harder. -- Alternatively, if the mob justice wins -- then hiring/firing people based on their views on Immigration/Abortion/Religions Freedoms/etc -- will be the norm. Either way, US citizens loose.... That was my point.

briffle 7y ago

I don't know much about chef (have used ansible and salt-stack). In a previous story, it talked about how a developer removed his code from a repository of Ruby Gems that chef uses, and broke many systems that had that as a dependency. And that Chef then "fixed the issue" after a bit of time. I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?

Four8Five 7y ago
They fixed the issue by literally forking and removing his name from everything.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  Um. Do you mean that they directly took the existing code and took his name out of it? That would be a pretty big no-no from a copyright perspective. (But it also wouldn't do anything, so I assume I'm misunderstanding)
  - davidcelis 7y ago
    They removed his name from everywhere _except_ the license notices. Which is kinda worse.

crispyporkbites 7y ago

I assume they pay taxes in america? Shouldn’t they also move the company to a different country and stop employing American citizens?

AzzieElbab 7y ago

This kind of making IBM look smart wrt to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866

ARandomerDude 7y ago

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think. The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP. We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.

prolepunk 7y ago
I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. No police brutality, racial profiling and horrendous record on institutionalized racism is not the same as 'No police'. Everyone is for community policing. As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
- ARandomerDude 7y ago
  > I don't understand this all-or-nothing mentality your prescribing to 'the mob'. Here's a good example: > As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    There is a quite rational position in determining that there is some point of no return at which something -- an organisation, company, government department, movement -- goes past the point of return or acceptance, and becomes dead to you. You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies. You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.

ProAm 7y ago

Who is Barry? (legitimate question) Im assuming head of sales at Chef? After a quick search on Twitter and Youtube he's the CEO

nvahalik 7y ago

> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office. Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?

kungtotte 7y ago
So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions? Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
- tracker1 7y ago
  Were you this outraged about the conditions when Obama was in office?
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    I don't live in the US, so I was not exposed to this issue until it became a big news item outside the US which happened after Trump came into office. So the answer is no, I wasn't because I was unable to be outraged due to my lack of information.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    I will not defend Obama's administration, or Bush's, but it's disingenuous to call out previous admins for new policies. Here is Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance policy". https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-ze... This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy. This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so. edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.

buboard 7y ago

I love this kind of free-market activism. I just wish people didnt force people to bake cakes

tracker1 7y ago
I'm not sure that I agree on liking this... the direction things can go, such as payment processors acting as censors, etc. can get pretty Orwellian.
- buboard 7y ago
  businesses can have ideologies. the problem is when there aren't alternatives, or can't be alternatives because of regulation

abnoxae 7y ago

I really don't understand how can people associate a tool with an ideology. Do we stop manufacturing cars because it helps support many unfavorable people/organizations?

dominicr 7y ago
Car manufacturers are not really accurate metaphors as it is CBP and ICE themselves who are carrying out actions that many people strongly disagree with. Whereas a car company has no control over its customers If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them. There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
IBM got a lot of deserved grief for working with Germany in the 1940s. Arms manufacturers are rightly shamed for some of their customers. I'm somewhat certain your beef is with the idea of that specific organisation being considered bad, not with the reaction to that determination.

cfv 7y ago

So much pearl clutching and "but Obama" in this thread. You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public. The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.

ng12 7y ago
I think it is reasonable to point out the hypocrisy. By the numbers, Obama was just as tough on our southern border.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  It strikes me as a sort of whataboutism
  - ng12 7y ago
    I'm beginning to hate this term. It's recent popularity has a tendency to turn everything into a reductionist argument. It shuts down discussion about the bigger picture or broad ideals in favor of a very narrow band of discourse.
    - Jach 7y ago
      Join the club! One useful phrase to keep in mind is "Chinese Robber Fallacy"[0] (edit: and for more than just spotting questionable uses of "whataboutism"[1]). It's "where you use a generic problem to attack a specific person or group, even though other groups have the problem just as much (or even more so)." Of course if you engage in this sort of "fallacy fallacy!" argument style, you rapidly get far from the discussion on the actual topic. The best move is probably just not to play. [0] https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/03/08/the-chinese-robber-fallacy/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/03/08/the-chinese-robber... [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chin...
    - 7y ago

user5994461 7y ago

Summary: "After deep introspection and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts." What's ICE and CBP?

braythwayt 7y ago
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs and Border Protection.
- user5994461 7y ago
  Thank you very much.

StreamBright 7y ago

>> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.

cjbprime 7y ago
Seeking asylum is not a crime.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Who said it was? You can go to any ____legal____ port of entry of the United States and apply for asylum. There is 2.3% chance for a Mexican to get it granted (based on 2015 data). The problem is when people try to cross the border illegally (which is a crime) dragging their children along. Not too surprisingly this is what the US CBP people want to stop.

jdm2212 7y ago

I'm curious with choices like this: how, concretely, does this change anything for the better? Was Chef on the critical path for any of ICE's distasteful work? If not, which part of the agency (and in support of which mission) was Chef working with, and is it good to impair that?

quotemstr 7y ago

Good. Actions like Chef's create a business opportunity for the rest of us. There's nothing wrong with working with defense and security sector. When SV companies refuse to enter this sector, they create a vacuum for others to fill and profit. This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality? Thank you, Chef.

stefantalpalaru 7y ago

> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist. https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles/ https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castle... : «“If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he’s illegal, we can make him disappear.” Those chilling words were spoken by James Pendergraph, then executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of State and Local Coordination, at a conference of police and sheriffs in August 2008.»