I think you meant to reply to the other person.

If you’ll notice I mention the biggest offenders and/or the the underlying management infrastructure.

Private jet owners getting systematically luigi’d would also fall under that remit, I was just using data centres as an example.

Oil rigs, Nestlé, blackrock etc would also all work , with varying degrees of efficacy and difficulty.

To address your argument directly, before you get all preachy think of the actual consequences of major data centres going down, all the critical infrastructure running on said data centres would also go down.

That’s air traffic control, shipping and logistics ,and yes, agriculture; any system relying on cloud services running in those data centres

If you pick the right ones and do it properly (a competently executed strategy, if you will) then you could cripple most industries, with all the consequences that brings.

Just to be clear you are saying you didn’t provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote

what i said were all truth claims.

no argument at all is needed.

I know you aren’t going to understand how your reply doesn’t make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.

It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I’ll leave you be.

Point to the advocation.

Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.

Indeed, but the definition does, I don’t care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.

I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.

For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.

Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.

But lets give it a go.

Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.

Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.

Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.

The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.

I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.

Sounds like you have an idea of what it means to you and are trying to foist that upon others.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

that’s a dictionary definition , top tier cherry picking though, congrats.

Having never owned a one i can’t say this with first-hand experience, but aren’t the issues with the cybertruck more to do with core design fuck ups.

To the point they wouldn’t really be considered “kinks” as much as critical design and safety flaws ?

Which law? in which place? at what time ?

Where it’s hosted? where it’s being accessed? the intermediate locations ?

Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?

Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?

This isn’t even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don’t is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.

The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.

So I gave you two examples that match your criteria and you still can’t figure it out. Got it.

…or …perhaps you did figure it out …and have moved the goalposts again… dammit , can’t believe I fell for that, congratulations.

I mean, I gave you a whole narrative about moving goalposts, if you can’t get it from that im not sure im qualified to help you.

Hmm , actually, there is this I suppose but that’s a lot more words than the previous reply so … It could go either way.

That’s some quality engineering at work there, are you using some of them in-post hidden motors like the sketchy cyclists ?

I can’t even see any wheels.

I thought for sure them goalposts were fixed in to the ground, but no, they just zipped on by at a rate of speed.

At a level you’d need to use for a search engine ?

The server CPU’s are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.

Server CPU’s are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.

I wasn’t arguing that the server CPU’s aren’t powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I’d personally consider to also be powerful.

The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.

I mean, going by wikipedia the latest (desktop) ryzen cpu released was the 9950X3D…i’d personally tag that as powerful.

everybody has their subjective scale of power i suppose.

My experiences are similar to yours, though less k8’s focused and more general DevSecOps.

it becomes a battle between custom-fitting and generalisation.

This is mentioned in the link as “Barely General Enough” I’m not sure i fully subscribe to that specific interpretation but the trade off between generalisation and specialisation is certainly a point of contention in all but the smallest dev houses (assuming they are not just cranking hard coded one-off solutions).

I dislike the yaml syntax, in the same way i dislike python, but it is pervasive in the industry at the moment so you work with that you have.

I don’t think yaml is the issue as much as the uncontrolled nature of the usage.

You’d have the same issue with any format as flexible to interpretation that was being created/edited by hand.

As in, if the yaml were generated and used automatically as part of a chain i don’t think it’d be an issue, but it is not nearly prescriptive enough to produce the high level kind of model definitions further up the requirements stack.

note: i’m not saying it couldn’t be done in yaml, i’m saying that it would be a massive effort to shoehorn what was needed into a structure that wasn’t designed for that kind of thing

Which then brings use back to the generalisation vs specialisation argument, do you create a hyper-specific dsl that allows you only to define things that will work within the boundaries of what you want, does that mean it can only work in those boundaries or do you introduce more general definitions and the complexity that comes with that.

Whether or not the solution is another layer of abstraction into a different format or something else entirely i’m not sure, but i am sure that raw yaml isn’t it.