skilning

Yep. I recently had to convince management to let us fix a legacy CloudFormation template that was brushing right up against the AWS resource limit for a single stack (which also means it was WAY over the recommended limit for a production stack). It had been causing CFN to occasionally choke on a deployment for over a year, and it was just a matter of time before we either added the resource that pushed us over the hard limit, or CFN choked on a deployment and failed to roll back to the last good state.

The director of my department kept asking, "But do we HAVE to do this now?", so my final answer was this:

"Do we _have_ to? No, but it's like a bridge. Bridges have an expected lifespan when they're built, and they're supposed to be torn down and rebuilt after that. It's not a HARD limit, though. The bridge doesn't immediately collapse the day after its lifespan, but there are fault accumulating. Metal fatigue, erosion of support material, and other things. Commuters can't tell the bridge is past its lifespan, and they'll continue crossing it every day without issue. And then one day the issues will accumulate to the point that the bridge fails and people DIE. That's the situation we're in with this stack. It will continue to function just fine until the day it doesn't, and on that day I won't be able to tell you how quickly we'll be able to recover the application stack, if at all."

That FINALLY got through to him.

Enshittification wins again. :(

Does the model require internet access, or is it running entirely locally?

It's a little more complicated than that. Even pasting the link into a new window (so no referrer) shows the image, at least after visiting the site for the first time.

> tidy machined chassis. (chassies?)

I think you mean "chassissessieses"? :)

Thank you! The "online" and "offline" terms were what was confusing me when trying to understand the conjecture. As a career-long software and networking person, I had a preconception of the terms that was REALLY throwing me off. :D

> Like most technical writing,

I think you've missed the core thesis of the article. That post _wasn't_ technical writing. It was marketing disguised as technical writing.

> why would you disobey a direct instruction from you super?

Because the instruction was stupid, based on marketing instead of utility, or otherwise given without any thought to how it impacts the actual day-to-day work of their subordinates.

Why WOULDN'T you disobey a stupid instruction? What's the difference between "stop using this tool you're productive in and switch to this one that you're demonstrably LESS productive in for no reason other than I heard it was a good idea", and "Go strap some rocks onto your ankles and swim the English channel. I heard that was a good idea."?

> Their argument is that all team members should use the same tools, and I guess that is a valid point

No. That's only a valid point if something about the tool must be shared between users, rather than just the output. Emacs is a text editor. It reads, modifies, and produces text. The correct tool for each team member to use is the one they're most productive with, full stop.

Jesus fucking Shiva while Odin watches, but I hate corporate management "thinking". It's just become more and more brain-dead over the decades.

I think that's a pretty reductive stance to take. Keyboard nagivation is more productive _if_ the primary use of the tool is text-based. In a word processor, an IDE, a file manager, or anything else where the primary mode of interaction is reading, typing, and processing the things you've read and typed, keyboard navigation can be demonstrated to be faster and more natural _only if_ the user has taken the time to learn the shortcuts.

For tools that are mainly for non-text visual information, then the keyboard versus mouse debate is much more heavily weighted in favor of the mouse. Even then, there are times when effective keyboard shortcuts are far more useful than menus and icons. Take any CAD or 3d modeling software as an example. 90% of what a user does will be interacting with visually-presented spatial data, but even then knowing the shortcuts for changing tools or modifying a tool's settings will make you much faster and remove the need to constantly navigate nested menus of options.

And completely irrelevant since the core materials in them are mined overseas.

Why the hell would disabling internet connectivity disable lane-keeping assist? O.o

Anyone have a non-paywalled mirror?

Can't help but read that and think, "And Nick thinks this email chain makes HIM look like the reasonable person?"

> is $0.002/minute a good price for this

Absolutely not, since it's the same price as their cheapest hosted option. If all they're doing is orchestration, why the hell are they charging per-minute instead of per-action or some other measure that recognizes the difference in their cost between self-hosted and github-hosted?

Have any suggestions to those community-developed and maintained options?

I can't decide if this article is satire.

I was asked to click "continue" after each of the first two sentences, and the fade-in of the text took longer than reading the text.

This may be a great article, but I'll never know because it's frustrating to try and read.

This concept has been around for ages. I remember way back in a previous life as a Java dev having a framework where you could annotate methods with permission requirements, and the framework would add runtime instrumentation to ensure the proper context was created in the current thread and had the proper permissions to invoke that method any time it was called.