Before I give my thoughts, I want to say that I really enjoyed this article. I didn't agree with much of it, but I had a good time reading it and I had a few ch

Before I give my thoughts, I want to say that I really enjoyed this article. I didn't agree with much of it, but I had a good time reading it and I had a few chuckles along the way. > Free-softwarites like to use beer metaphors (free as in beer). Let me suggest that if one were concerned with bad actors, one wouldn’t drink purchased beer (or free beer). One would brew one’s own beer, because bad actors might have poisoned the beer. And one would have to grow one’s own hops, (as bad actors might have poisoned purchased hops). And what might one use for water to brew the beer? Bad actors might have poisoned the water supply. One would need to dig one’s own well (unless, of course, the bad actors had polluted the water table). This way lies temperance. This is not cut and dry. It is a spectrum. A spectrum of abstraction layers. There are layers where you trust others more than you trust yourself, and that is where it's OK for small teams with small budgets (technical or financial) to abstract away more and more complexity with another layer. If you're a fairly technical organization with huge budgets, and your market demands extra stability; you run your own infra. Organizations can only implement plans when their capabilities align with their intent. If you lack capability you must reduce your intent or obtain more capability. Capability can be purchased. There is an opportunity cost analysis associated with those decisions. The author of the article seems to assert that every org should just abstract away all complexity all the time just because they can. They don't stop to consider the cost or difficulty associated with that approach. > ...but having a government agency whose job it is to keep the beer supply safe might be more effective than having each household test the beer they purchase to determine if it is safe... The author ignores the fact that most of this demographic owns guns to protect their family from that $2 trillion dollar military. But I digress, you're still conflating "Effective" with "Cost effective" which are not the same thing. Most organization would at least perform some rudimentary risk-benefit analysis. If buying beer is 99.999% safe and making beer is 100% safe, is the cost associated with producing beer worth the risk?