The summary mentions "scroll[ing] their LinkedIn connections", but relying too heavily on this sort of thing puts people with no connections at a disadvantage, and actually makes it more difficult for a cohort trying to address a diversity problem to do so.

Almost all software nowadays involves some back-end with 24/7/365 availability, which means that unplanned outages can occur at any time. It sucks, especially for small or one-person operations, but it's the game many of us are in.

What if logic is different in different universes? Logic is universal... but is it multiversal?

Why does a successful software business need to be a "visionary startup"? Taking on consulting work and discovering the product by listening to customers seems like a reasonable approach.

If an employee expects to do something interesting or profitable with a personal project, then it's a "no", but it's not a WTF.

EDITED TO ADD: This is why we need laws that protect personal projects and make it impossible for companies to demand this. But in the absence of such restrictions on companies, they're going to set themselves up to win in any kind of dispute. It is not a WTF.

Historically in US movie theaters, there's so much popcorn grease and spilled soda on the floor that your shoes actually get stuck to it while you're watching the movie.

EDIT: Wow downvotes? It's true! Maybe they mop them now but back when Diller was in the movie business, your shoes actually did get stuck to the floor because of all the spilled snacks. I haven't been to a movie theater in many years, but the grime was an essential part of the experience. Someone should open a throwback 80s theater.

"You should learn how to use these commands, but they shouldn't be a regular part of your prod workflows. That will lead to a flaky system."

It seems like there's some theory vs. practice tension here. In theory, you shouldn't need to use these commands often, but in practice, you should be able to do them quickly.

How often is it the case in reality that a team of Kubernetes superheroes, well versed in these commands, is necessary to make Continuous Integration and/or Continuous Deployment work?

Because the first full sentence of the policy at https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desktop-privacy-notice/ specifies that it applies to "our desktop app Audacity".

A family history of slavery might not necessarily be the cause, but having ancestors who were allowed into the property club, at a time in the past when there was still headroom to pump appreciation faster than inflation, makes a difference in what people inherit.

Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.

For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.

Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.

Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.

EDIT: speaking of insults, this is on the HN front page right now:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27595429

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossa...

This gets back to what I disagree with. If Amazon's decisions seem hard to explain, the decisions should be brought to the public's attention and Amazon should explain them. There is no reason for it to remain a mystery. And they'll never explain it unless there is a price to be paid for not explaining, e.g. being perceived as wasteful.

I disagree with this, or at least the implication that there should have been more information gathered before publication.

If the data is surprising against a common-sense set of expectations, it's Amazon's burden to provide a context for interpretation where the surprising information makes sense, not the report.

Assuming the report's facts are in order, reporting accurate facts and leaving "contextualization" to someone else is good journalism, especially if the facts themselves are not widely known or actively hidden.