throwaway892238

I dropped out of school in 9th grade. I make $200K a year. A friend of mine has a college degree and has been unemployed for a year.

There is no uniform standard of education in the US. Kids in the South are being taught that evolution is on par with intelligent design. Poor black kids in Baltimore have on average a 3rd grade reading level in high school, while rich kids a few counties away are taught when to use a backdoor roth ira. Don't even mention "no child left behind".

Maybe let's calm down a bit with the judgement.

They're not revealing anyone's names. Names are anonymous by default until you elect to share yours.

It's both funny and sad when people find out how the real world works and get all indignant. "How dare they do a thing they're legally allowed to do! Rabble rabble rabble!!!" Glassdoor is trying to make money off you, like every other free site on the internet, and they will do whatever the law allows them to. Welcome to planet Earth.

Meanwhile, all the commenters in here are overreacting as usual, clearly not having read any of the terms of the website, like the part where it says your name is not disclosed until you explicitly elect to share it. But hey let's not let facts stop us from freaking out.

Hickey's definition of simple is wrong. It's not the opposite of complex at all. They are not opposites, nor mutually exclusive.

  - Easy is when something does not require much effort.
  - Simple means the least complex it can be and still work.
  - Complex means there are lots of components.

These are all quite different concepts:

  - Easy is a concept that distinguishes the amount of work needed to use a solution
  - Simple is a concept that distinguishes whether or not there is an excess number of interacting properties in a system
  - Complex is a concept describing the quality of having a number of interacting properties in a system

Hickey's talk is useful in terms of thinking about software, but it also contains many over-generalizations which are incorrect and lead to incorrect thinking about things that aren't software. (Even some of his declarations about software are wrong)

"Deep", in the context of software complexity, probably only makes sense in terms of describing the number of layers involved in a piece of technology. You could make something have many layers, and it could still be simple, or be complex, or easy.

> The "simple" in S3 is a misnomer. S3 is not actually simple. It's deep.

Simple doesn't mean "not deep". It means having the fewest parts needed in order to accomplish your requirements.

If you require a distributed, centralized, replicated, high-availability, high-durability, high-bandwidth, low-latency, strongly-consistent, synchronous, scalable object store with HTTP REST API, you can't get much simpler than S3. Lots of features have been added to AWS S3 over the years, but the basic operation has remained the same.

The high vis is paramount. The helmet... well, I just don't know how much good it would do if you get clipped by an F-150 going 60mph

The scary part of this to me is biking on country roads, especially with 55mph speed limits that big pick-ups regularly blow past. I live in a rural town, and I would be terrified to bring a bike outside slower town roads.

That's just one logistical problem (of many). The real reason we don't have flying cars is because we don't want them bad enough. If we spent enough capital, we could solve all the logistical and technical challenges and have flying cars. But the cost and effort it would take is so significant that nobody has yet had a good enough reason to do it.

Planes are good enough for going a long distance fast, and cars/trucks/trains are good enough for going a long distance slow. We could make a flying car, but for what? For individual people to go a moderate-distance fast? To go a short distance really fast? Cars and planes are good enough for our needs today without the huge investment in development of a new tech.

This is exactly the same reason internal combustion engines have ruled the roads for 100 years. Electric cars were preferred over ICE 100 years ago, but gasoline enabled us to go further for cheaper, so we accepted all the downsides, and industry made it convenient. It's only because we're suddenly afraid of our climate killing us that we're switching back to electric.

Every American utility company I have ever looked into has numerous crimes and controversies associated with it. It's kind of weird.

I actually suspect it's due to them being publicly traded. They literally are not allowed to do things that would jeopardize the share price, so they will hurt themselves and people in order to make a minor profit increase YOY. You shouldn't need to be a capitalist enterprise (with the whole "infinite revenue growth" thing) if your purpose is just to make sure your customers - who won't ever really grow much, because, you know, only so many babies born etc - have power, water, etc. But as publicly traded companies, their first purpose is just to increase shareholder revenue. If you end up (accidentally) burning down a forest, poisoning some communities, or compromising a state election with a fake candidate, that may just be an unfortunate side effect in the service of increasing the stock price.

Agreed. If Linux were a distributed OS, people would just be running a distro with systemd instead of K8s. (Of course, systemd is just another kubernetes, but without the emphasis on running distributed systems)

When people call Kubernetes a "great piece of technology", I find it the same as people saying the United States is the "greatest country in the world". Oh yeah? Great in what sense? Large? Absolutely. Powerful? Definitely. But then the adjectives sort of take a turn... Complicated? Expensive? Problematic? Threatening? A quagmire? You betcha.

If there were an alternative to Kubernetes that were just 10% less confusing, complicated, opaque, monolithic, clunky, etc, we would all be using it. But because Kubernetes exists, and everyone is using it, there's no point in trying to make an alternative. It would take years to reach feature parity, and until you do, you can't really switch away. It's like you're driving an 18-wheeler, and you think it kinda sucks, but you can't just buy and then drive a completely different 18 wheeler for only a couple of your deliveries.

You probably will end up using K8s at some point in the next 20 years. There's not really an alternative that makes sense. As much as it sucks, and as much as it makes some things both more complicated and harder, if you actually need everything it provides, it makes no sense to DIY, and there is no equivalent solution.

Oh, HN. Always upvoting the dumbest contrarian thinkpieces. It's like accidental 4Chan without the humor.