You forgot the IMHO.

No, in my professional experience.

He doesn't known what he is talking about. Bunch of wannabe founders waxing BS. If you want 8 hours of guaranteed output use a bot

Yup, short walt to my colleagues who are all spread across the world. /$

First, nobody cares what you want. Second, do you pay for those 4 hours adequately, guess what if you don't? Even if you do, are you OK with 2 hours today and 6 hrs tomorrow? How about a year of 1 hour days and then a 24 hour period that fixes all the problems for last 2 years?

The Internet tough guy strikes again, as if employment is not a voluntary contract between two consenting adults. This militant attitude is always good for a laugh... hate management if you like, but if you think no employee ever worries about what their manager wants, sounds like you've never held a job.

Not really sure why I am even responding to this amazingly stupid line of discussion. I mean if you absolutely hate the idea of having a boss (I know I did) then there is a solution for that - start your own company! It's not as easy as being a badass on the Internet, sure, but you might have to look at both sides of the argument and you might even end up getting rid of that chip on your shoulder.

Let me quickly go count my years of experience, will have to use all my digits and extremities, might be a minute.

I don't think you got the point behind the comment. We do not have a good way to quantify effort, thus we ask for a fixed set of time in chairs, tickets closed, etc that's the best we can come up with.

If the 'general purpose compute' is used by rocket, then yes?

So you would be fine with sharing criminal liability if you, for example, bought a car from someone and later that person committed a crime?

I wouldn't, that's why there are rules everyone adheres to.

By the same token, if Microsoft provides "general purpose compute" to a state that does something harmful, Microsoft should not be expected to share moral culpability for that harm. That's why I objected in the first place. It is not as if they provided something exclusively or primarily used for causing harm.

MS said they wouldn't, that's where the conflict arises. The fund doesn't want to be involved with any shady stuff and is trying their "humanity clause".

So helping with blob storage or not helping at all? Can't be in dual state.

Doing this at anything > 1k nodes is a pain in the butt. We decided to run many <100 nodes clusters rather than a few big ones.

Same here. Non Kubernetes project originated control plane components start failing beyond a certain limit - your ingress controllers, service meshes etc. So I don't usually take node numbers from these benchmarks seriously for our kind of workloads. We run a bunch of sub-1k node clusters.

Same. The control plane and various controllers just aren't up to the task.

Meh, I've had had clusters with close to 1k nodes (w/ cilium as CNI) and didnt have major issues

When I was involved about a year ago, cilium falls apart at around a few thousand nodes.

One of the main issues of cilium is that the bpf maps scale with the number of nodes/pods in the cluster, so you get exponential memory growth as you add more nodes with the cilium agent on them. https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/operations/performance/scal...

Thats true and I definitely had to "tune" the bpf map limits, but it wasn't really that difficult to do.

Wouldn't that be quadratic rather than exponential?

Or simply rich get richer as you put no brake on the wealth.

The first level argument is that old horse, burden of proof.

"significant minority of Gaza territory" you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Do you have some kind of response that isn't just an ad hominem?

There is no such thing as significant minority. Therefore your argument is predicated on nothing, and a loss of time.

> There is no such thing as significant minority.

Huh? You'll have to explain that one.

It is not possible to be a member of significant minority, this would be a fallacy. But, I'm not as good as AI in explaining this and thus looked it up in Google: While "significant minority" is not an established logical fallacy, it can be used to commit two related fallacies: the appeal to minority and a flawed variation of the appeal to popularity (ad populum). This rhetorical tactic exploits the audience's biases by using the status of a group, rather than evidence, to argue for a claim