4 ms·
Technically, it would be an undefined number of times easier. n/0 is not infinite.
by stonewareslord 6y ago
Technically, it would be an undefined number of times easier. n/0 is not infinite.
- pcjthug 6y agoTechnically, we may consider k0s to be the limit of a decreasing sequence of container orchestrators `k8s, k3s, ... = k{x}s as x -> 0` in which case we have 8/x -> +inf
- kimburgess 6y agoTechnically, neither the limit or full progression is defined by the information available. The set {k8, k3, k0} may be equally represented as a decreasing series of container orchestrators with reducing prime differences.
- oarsinsync 6y agoI always thought that k3ks was so named because the symbol for 3 looks like a partial symbol for 8, indicating that it's k8s with a bit less.