Stabbing has always the risk of being fatal. No slur deserves death.
Edit: to expand to that, being motivated and proportional are two principles that I find very moral. I agree that legal and moral are not the same, but in this case I think the law is absolutely aligned with my moral. Stabbing someone for a slap or a slur is completely disproportionate and I would absolutely not consider it justified. Being assaulted and fearing from your life, that is different.
Spitting on someone is an assault. Insulting someone is not. The two things are not comparable.
You don't blame the guy for striking her after getting spit in the face?
To be clear, I wouldn't escalate anything in general, if someone cuts in line or whatever, not worth picking a fight for such silly things. But if you spit to someone in their face, getting punched is something that it's well within the realm of things you should expect. From an ethical point of view, I probably wouldn't do either, but in general spitting is what turned this uncivilized event (from both parties) into a fight.
If a guy hits me even once and I knife him in self defense,
Self-defense laws vary a lot across countries. At least where I live, defense has to be motivated and proportional. If someone would slap you - for example - and you stab them, that probably wouldn't count as self-defense. I would personally disagree with you in that context, and probably a judge would too (at least here).
Kubernetes is not really meant primarily for scaling. Even kubernetes clusters require autoscaling groups on nodes to support it, for example, or horizontal pod autoscalers, but they are minor features.
The benefits are pooling computing resources and creating effectively a private cloud. Easy replication of applications in case of hardware failure. Single language to deploy applications, network controls, etc.
Yes if single node, kinda if 2-3 nodes, no for anything above that IMHO.
That takes courage to say, after 90% of your comments have to do with (speculations on) me.
Anyway, good riddance.
I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don't consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.
This was a objectively true from my viewpoint
Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.
He was simply wrong for this statement.
And I respect your opinion.
that did more harm than good.
Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith
Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn't know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:
I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.
This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.
Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.
I agree with you on the principle. In this case I disagree with the premise. Years of actions I think easily out weight that tweet. If that's the only reason to be suspicious, then I don't think it's warranted.
I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn't produce much coherent criticism of ideas.
Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that "leaders" (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.
I don't need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).
You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.
If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences is they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.
Very easy to understand. But why should we (the customers, citizens, etc.) care? My interest is to have that knowledge, it's the shareholder interest to have the business succeeding, and they take care of that. So why from your words you seem to imply that it's "better" if they keep their mouth shut (and therefore protect the businesses)?
I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil’s advocate about them because that is just what you do.
Unnecessary ad-hominem, which is also easily proved wrong. I hear the opinions of Musk, of Bezos (but also of Zuckerberg, of the Nvidia guy, of Altman and many others) and I am happy because with that information I can (and do) distance myself from their companies. In this case, I feel differently and therefore I take another decision. I like to think that I can critically evaluate situations, but if the conclusion I end up with is different from yours it doesn't mean that mine is wrong by definition.
You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded.
You are clearly wrong about this. I have nothing to prove obviously, but you can easily also see that by just browsing through other posts on my blog, for example this. I will even go a step further and say that the purism and localism (as defined in this book) that emerges from your words is something I explicitly want to distance myself from, because it has proved to be a complete failure in terms of political battles.
I am referring at things like:
It is clear no matter what corner of the Internet we run to as long as it is into the open arm of corporations it is a mistake.
Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him.
I don't. I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself. Please don't assume other people's positions.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I felt that was really uncalled for. The whole post elaborates quite a lot in thousands of words, and I feel like your summary is not really accurate. Unfortunately, I have no way to debate accusations that follow a circular logic, so I won't attempt to do so.
Otherwise please keep that shit to yourself and keep it out of your business if you ever want my money.
I reiterate that I find curious that you seem to prefer ignorance of those positions, as if the reality is suddenly better if you don't know a problem exists. You would rather pay for Proton not knowing that Andy Yen thinks what he thinks than having more information so that you can choose to stop paying. Obviously just an example, same thing applies to the WaPo or Tesla, or any other similar case.
Absolutely, but a much much lower risk than a stab. Since we are reasoning on the morals and not from a purely rhetorical point of view, we can't consider them the same. Also that's why I specifically said "slapping" in my example. Slapping is still physical violence, it's still an attack, but it's an example of something that doesn't warrant a potentially fatal response.