3 ms·

> The goal for oncall should be to NEVER get called. Is that not also reductive then? Or maybe my statement pretty accurately captures that sentiment without 4

> The goal for oncall should be to NEVER get called. Is that not also reductive then? Or maybe my statement pretty accurately captures that sentiment without 4 sentences of explanation. But no, instead of engaging with the meat of my argument you just reductively attack one sentence. I get it, I'm oncall right now for my job. I don't like it when alarms go off. I also understand that if I were to tune the alarms so I "NEVER get called" I'd be out of a job soon enough because the business would go under.

bckr 2y ago
Okay, dialing up good-faith engagement. How would your interpretation change if the article said this instead? > The goal for oncall should be to continuously tune the system toward having no outages and no false alarms. FWIW, I did only attack one sentence. This was not exactly intended to be dismissive. It was my reaction to, in my eyes, the weakest part of your argument.