dolni

34 ms·

391.
by dolni 5y ago
That's kind of a tone-deaf thing to say, _especially_ given the recent allegations surrounding Activison-Blizzard ( https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzar... ). It absolutely app
392.
by dolni 5y ago
Sure, they do benefit everyone, but you missed the point I was making. The point is that they claim it is to level a playing field, but they're not actually doing that if those accommodations are open to everybody. Your comparison also
393.
by dolni 5y ago
It does help with the interview process. A lot of communication lies in body language and tone of voice. Taking that out of the equation, absent a good reason, is going to eliminate useful information. Some people might exhibit behaviors th
394.
by dolni 5y ago
There is a lot of this that seems poorly thought through. Asking for an employee's medical records is forbidden. Asking an employee to undergo a medical exam is forbidden. Asking questions about the employee's health or disabiliti
395.
by dolni 5y ago
> Their description of the issue is not hyperbolic Saying that police are never held accountable is, in fact, hyperbolic. > Their description of the solution is well-reasoned There's no reasoning beyond first order "this thi
396.
by dolni 5y ago
> OP doesn't read like troll OR hyperbole Really? And how do you figure that? They literally opened with "There won't be any consequences, because the police never face any consequences." The entire planet can name at
397.
by dolni 5y ago
So I should assume that this guy's opinion is the same as everyone else's? A+ communication skills.
398.
by dolni 5y ago
Both articles mention specifically that police were replaced _for certain calls_. But that doesn't jive with your proposal to completely eliminate police and replace them with something else. I'm not going to engage you any furthe
399.
by dolni 5y ago
All you did was state "this thing sucks and it needs to go." Oh and by the way, it should be replaced by "something." That's not a well-reasoned solution. That's not a solution at all. All you're doing is
400.
by dolni 5y ago
This reads like a troll message to me, so I'm not sure I should even engage. But in the off chance it isn't, then if you actually want to convince people of something you should try: * Not using ridiculous hyperbole * Providing a
401.
by dolni 5y ago
> 30 years of conservatives not understanding what affirmative action is really the reason for this. And yet you haven't made any persuasive argument about what it "really" is or why it's good. > But, then again co
402.
by dolni 5y ago
A long time ago, I used CrashPlan for backups. They had support for Linux, and I had a Linux server at the time that ran ownCloud and some other services that needed backups. I pointed CrashPlan at the appropriate directories and let it rol
403.
by dolni 5y ago
If you've been in tech for a while, this is one of those things that makes you sigh and shake your fist at "move fast and break stuff" as a strategy.
404.
by dolni 5y ago
> People don't believe me when I say how much DNS matters. That's weird to me. I have been working in sysadmin/DevOps for over a decade, but it did not take me very long to learn that DNS outages cause massive problems.
405.
by dolni 5y ago
I can't say I have had the same experience. Kubernetes cluster changes potentially create issues for all services operating in that cluster. Provisioning logic that is baked into an image means changes to one service have no chance of
406.
by dolni 5y ago
Multi-cloud is one of the few compelling use cases I can think of for Kubernetes. That said, there are relatively few organizations that actually require it.
407.
by dolni 5y ago
That's not really any different for Kubernetes. You still need to figure out where your persistent storage is. You still have to send logs somewhere for aggregation. You have the added difficulty of figuring out cost tracking in Kubern
408.
by dolni 5y ago
Does Kubernetes infrastructure also not require some form of configuration? Yes, there is a trade off here. You are trading a staggeringly complex external dependency for a little bit of configuration you write yourself. The Kubernetes mast
409.
by dolni 5y ago
"Only the k8s admins" implies you have a team to manage it. A lot of things go from not viable to viable if you have the luxury of allocating an entire team to it.
410.
by dolni 5y ago
But "keeping up with changes" applies just as much to Kubernetes, and I would argue it's even more dangerous because an upgrade potentially impacts every service in your cluster. I build AMIs for most things on EC2. That inte
411.
by dolni 5y ago
Respectfully, I think you have a lot of ignorance about what a typical cloud provider offers. Let's go through these each step-by-step. > SSH configuration Do you mean the configuration for sshd? What special requirements would have
412.
by dolni 5y ago
Sure, you can use those things. But now you also have to maintain them. It costs time, and time is money. If you don't have the expertise to administrate those things effectively, it may not be a worthwhile investment. Everyone's
413.
by dolni 5y ago
> Kubernetes removes the complexity of keeping a process (service) available. Does it really do that if it you just use it to provision an AWS load balancer, which can do health checks and terminate unhealthy instances for you? No. Sure,
414.
by dolni 5y ago
Sure, there is configuration that goes into using your cloud provider's "infrastructure primatives". My point is that Kubernetes is often using those anyway, and if you don't understand them you're unprepared to res
415.
by dolni 5y ago
I don't find the comparison to systemd to be convincing here. The end-result of systemd for the average administrator is that you no longer need to write finicky, tens or hundreds of line init scripts. They're reduced to unit file
416.
by dolni 5y ago
If you can literally pick up and shift to another cloud provider just by moving Kubernetes somewhere else, you are spending mountains of engineering time reinventing a bunch of different wheels. Are you saying you don't use any of your
417.
by dolni 5y ago
> how many instances should be where? Are you referring to instances of your application, or EC2 instances? If instances of your application, in my experience it doesn't really do much for you unless you are willing to waste compute
418.
by dolni 5y ago
Kubernetes uses all those underlying AWS technologies anyway (or at least an equivalently complex thing). You still have to be prepared to diagnose issues with them to effectively administrate Kubernetes.
419.
by dolni 5y ago
You don't even need to implement service discovery. AWS load balancers do that for you.
420.
by dolni 5y ago
Uh... what? Apples and oranges. Whatever convenience you think Kubernetes provides over EC2/autoscaling (which Kubernetes uses, by the way) is several orders of magnitude less than the convenience of using a cloud provider. That you wo

More ›