The idea that powerful manager saying untrue things shouldn't be contradicted may seem like "obviously correct" to you, but actually at the places where 80% of engineers call that shit out that political manager probably gets booted from the company.

But many people genuinely believe politicians are a net negative on the company as a whole, and in startups many people are willing to do/say what's best for the company without expecting some individual return.

Take things like even certain physics propositions (e.g. discovering new particles) -- can take billions of dollars building a new reactor and years of experiments to find a result.

Anything medical or psychological also can take this result. If a chemical reduces your iq by 5 points over 10 years, it might not be able to do a study that finds that result on an academic budget.

Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The fact is that it's just really really hard to establish a causal relationship, even if it's there, because of all the cofounders. Heck even if you constructed a study with a known poison, like lead, and you might not see the results in a single study. You could give 50 participants water with flint levels of lead in it for a month, and you might not get scientifically significant result just due to the wide variance in a population.

Or another example is just thinking how hard it would be construct a study with a control, when every single construction material has plastics in it and they are floating in the air around us all the time (as mentioned in the article). Could it affect mental or reproductive wellbeing? Certainly. Can we construct a study to establish either way? Not easily.

And one of the plasticizers they talk about, pthalates, are known to be endocrine disruptors (i.e. mess with hormones).

[Strain sativa/indica can sort of be an indicator, but going by the dose of each active ingredient is the more scientific approach]

probable cardiac arrhythmia tied to systemic sarcoidosis, with methamphetamine/kratom as contributing factors.

The idea of changing immigration policies is not unique to any political party. However the quote isn't that, it's trying to stir up an angry us/them reaction at a large group based on national/racial lines. Also "damn parasites" is somewhat dehumanizing (whether you apply it to billionaires or immigrants).

Bro I've worked at meta, I've worked at places that handled 1billion requests a day with a team of 20 people. I have a lot of questions myself about your experience that might be impolite as well. The fact that you linked kubernetes and file descriptors makes me think you really don't actually have the baseline fundamentals at all here.

You just used a load-balancer (an AWS one preferably) with a few machines behind it, optionally an auto-scale group. AWS has multi-region support built in.

Re: file descriptors -- that's not something handled by kubernetes, if anything you just have more layers now.

You don't need service discovery, you never did, Host your services at a private zone {service-name}.{env}.company.com zones which points to the loadbalancer.

You need monitoring and should use an observability solution for that, has 0 to do with kubernetes.

You're just taking a bunch of random entirely solved problems and for some reason suggesting kubernetes is somehow helpful for them.

I still think almost all of my complaints were valid: - not just container orchestration, more like a whole AWS solution (its own routing)

- has single-points of failure that would be avoided if you just used aws

- unnecessary complexity for almost all use cases

- ecosystem easily allows you to 2x-8x that complexity (helm+argocd+istio+carpenter+dozens more=hundreds of new failure modes)

- fundamentally moves many teams to a "I don't understand why my service is crashing, so let's just bring up more nodes every time rather than ever learning to debug it" mentality.

- All the feature teams that are supposed to "own their own kubernetes implementation for their own services" never do.

Of course a lot of that frustration is more at working at a place with a poorly-operated SOA where it takes a half-dozen services to send an email to a client or send a text or something silly. It sure is a waste of runway to obsess over a SOA when you aren't profitable yet.

But at this point it's sort of a sunk cost because it's become the industry standard. And AI can help with 90% of the complexity, which is it's own yellow-flag, but here we are.

I think the only thing I actually have any concern about is phones and social media use for kids, and I think that has a much easier solution than any sorting of tracking-BS.

This sort of pedantry is really just supporting the opposition.

Whenever you want to prove your adult you go to "am I an adult.gov" and you use your credit card or whatever to prove you are an adult. At which point you get a 1-time 5-digit code that is UNIVERSAL TO EVERY SINGLE HUMAN and good for 1 hour (everybody who uses the site gets the same code that hour).

Then when you want to look at porn or something, you use this code. Boom simple and done.

There are even much better much more private techniques that use cryptography, and AI is happy to explain these graduate-degree level topics to you at your own pace.

Of course there are situations where people steal things, and use deep-fakes, etc, but those exist in every model.

I don't think an executive's job is why, it's strategy (what in the long term).

I also think what/how questions are inextricably interlinked -- what we should build depends on whether or not we can build/maintain it cheaply enough.

Here's where I do agree -- I do think the AI era changes how companies work, it does make them smaller, that reduction in size reduces the amount of filler roles (project managers), and this will be a great benefit to the bottom line. Though ideally this means more competition so that benefit goes to the consumer too.