"Would you let kids gamble?" - "It sounds very fun and obvious." "To be clear, we think it's a horrible idea!"

The ability to acquire domain knowledge quickly however, isn't exactly the same as the ability to develop complex software.

Its a farce, of course, but one that can sometimes muster enough support to keep the signs in the shop with just a bit of intimidation and violence to back it up.

Social reality is always constructed. No single construction is more real than any other.

Imagine working an a project for the first time, having a Dockerfile that works or compose file, that just downloads and spins up all dependencies and builds the project succesfully. Usually that just works and you get up and running within 30 minutes or so.

On the other hand, how it used to be: having to install the right versions of, for example redis, postgres, nginx, and whatever unholy mess of build tools is required for this particular hairball, hoping it works on you particular (version) of linux. Have fun with that.

Working on multiple projects, over a longer period of time, with different people, is so much easier when setup is just 'docker compose up -d' versus spending hours or days debugging the idiosyncrasies of a particular cocktail that you need to get going.

It is not that difficult to understand a Dockerfile and use containers. Containers, from a developer pov, solve the problem of reliably reproducing development, test and production environments and workloads, and distributing those changes to a wider environment. It is not perfect, its not 100% foolproof, and its not without its quirks or learning curve.

However, there is a reason docker has become as popular as it is today (not only containers, but also dockerfiles and docker compose), and that is because it has a good tradeoff between various concerns that make it a highly productive solution.

I don't find this assertion very plausible honestly, especially if this would be an argument against the existence of these very laws, because its not really an argument against government backdoors and such.

You could make the same argument (of ambiguity) with almost any crime, because there are always cases where a crime is hard to prove completely without any risk of failure, especially in the realm of sexual assault.

I'm not taking a position here, honestly I'm unsure about it, but the reasoning is sloppy and the allegations of abuse seemingly pulled out of thin air. There is also no case for why the poster is being investigated other than the pornography. It would be more plausible if there was some kind of civil disobedience involved. As stated, I'm inclined to put this in the category conspiracy theory.

1. immoral people (such as psychopaths) will be disproportionately at the helm of large corporations

2. regular people will make immoral decisions, because to do otherwise would be against their own interests or because the consequences / moral impact are hidden from their awareness

There is no way to act in life that isn't in some sense moral or political, because it also impacts others and you are always responsible for your what you do (or don't do). And corporations are just a bunch of people doing stuff together. To maintain otherwise is in itself a (im)moral act, intentionally or not, see point 2 above.

So they may pivot to closed source when the circumstances will benefit it, or they may actually not do that. They have no shareholders that force them to squeeze the bottom line. The perceived benefits may just be slight and their culture will push them to stay the course on the long term, where other companies will do the reverse. Maybe if their survival is at stake, but wouldn't anyone faced with existential danger do anything to stay alive, including the worst imaginable?

Within certain commercial boundaries that keeps the business profitable, companies can and do make all sorts of decisions based on values and visions that are more than just economical, especially companies not beholden to shareholders that only care about short-term profits. Even the economical decisions aren't purely rational and often done from some kind of cultural bias.

Its not going to stop attacks, but it will limit blast radius a lot.

Of course, this is not a real defense on its own, its just good practice to limit blast radius, much like not giving everybody admin rights.

You have to make sure you're not putting any secrets in the container environment.

The thing I'm wondering is, if you don't care, why make the effort to comment at all? Clearly you care enough to do so. What are you afraid will happen by merely acknowledging what is the case? Whenever someone presents the finding of facts as hysterical, I'm left wondering who is actually the hysterical one.

The microplastic particles in our air aren't hysterical. They are just there. Research revealing they are present isn't hysterical either, nor is research about the consequences. At most, such research is more or less accurate, or distorted. I'm starting to think you are the one who is hysterical in this matter.

But for what reason? I can only think of only three:

you agree with the dangers but find it so overwhelming that you want to shut it down

you fear losing the benefits of plastic and want to undermine any action on the subject

you just can't take any kind of panic, regardless of the reasons and to maintain your sanity, you vehemently push away anything that might otherwise makes you feel alarmed

In the Netherlands, millions of people burn wood in stoves or fireplaces, just for coziness, or use it for heating where alternatives are readily available. The evidence for its massive detrimental health effects is overwhelmingly clear. When you dare to even present this evidence, you will get flamed and ridiculed as if you are an evil luddite out to take away their small pleasures in life.

We are slowly getting rational about the effects of smoking, but choking out your neighbors (and children) by burning wood is still something people feel is their human right.

There are several factors to be considered: the actual risk of older and newer systems, the impact, how to mitigate a fire and avoid the worst consequences, and weighing against the alternatives. Especially the latter is somehow always absent in denialist narratives. However, when the alternative is basically heating the planet into a dystopian hellscape, we may accept some negatives of any kind of technology that doesn't put our whole existence at risk.

We need to be real about the downsides yes, but let's also be real and accept we don't have any choice but push forward.

Here is my 1 minute AI powered 'research' btw:

"The fire risk for battery plant storage is not a single, universally agreed-upon percentage, but available data suggests a low and decreasing risk, especially for properly maintained and installed systems. For example, one study found the 2023 risk for home battery systems to be \(0.0049\%\), while another source reports a \(97\%\) drop in large-scale system failures between 2018 and 2023. The risk is influenced by factors like manufacturing quality, installation, and maintenance."

Doesn't seem all that alarming yet.

Any kind of code generation that proves incredibly productivity in the writing of software is kind of like saying you have a lot of money by maxing out your creditcard. Maybe you can pay it back, maybe you can't. The fact that there is no mention of future debt is exactly the kind of thing that old men get suspicious about.

I'm not saying the old men are correct. I'm just pointing out the reason for the yelling.