I haven't encountered any Chef code in almost ten years. For the stragglers not yet primarily on Kubernetes and Terraform, I see Ansible and some extra Terraform. Maybe I see some Salt here and there.
These are just my anecdotes, for sure, but (also anecdotal) I rarely hear of other "ops" type people using Chef, and most of the ones I know never got more than just their feet wet with Chef (the SaltStack beta was out early enough to avoid Chef).
Terraform and Chef definitely go well together. Like peanut butter and chocolate. Terraform is great at provisioning cloud resources but not so great at configuring the details once they're up, Chef is great at configuring servers that exist but can't do squat to provision them in the first place. At my job we use both of them quite a bit to manage our stateful EC2 instances, because of the way they complement each other.
> All four were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the private chats.
Anyone with access to NSA plus various subcontractors' toolsets can "unmask" these people in like five minutes. Musk may not be "tech genius" some of the media makes him out to be, but he knows enough about how the internet and computers work (or has advisors who do) to figure that out.
While yes, this is happening to someone many really don't like, the optics of this look very bad. And, for those who dislike this particular politician who might be celebrating now, this is much more so bad news than it is good news.
At the end of the day, when we select our leaders to represent us, we seem to have forgotten that a big part of it should be about about the ethics, principles, character, and judgement of the individual.
If someone on "my side" was found guilty of embezzlement or fraud -- through due process in a court of law with sufficient evidence that there was no path of appeal -- then I have ZERO problems denouncing the individual and would celebrate their punishment.
This is the fundamental problem with the left in the US: the standards for ethics, principles, judgement, and character are simply higher and the left will more readily fault candidates for even small lapses while the right has no such qualms.
The whole 34 felony thing is not the one and only thing that cost the dems the election, but it's one of the major things. That, and the fine people hoax. They managed to float that one for a while. But: what goes up, must come down.
Many of the addicts are long past the mission of "trying to feel good" but are trying to stave off horrible withdrawal symptoms. Ibogaine clinics can help a lot of people. Ibogaine clinics don't work for everybody, and won't work for those who don't want to change their lifestyle, but can help bring back something resembling an okay life for a lot of people.
> The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a larger republic of a union of republics.
"The USA is a democracy" is a perfectly valid and correct statement. "No, it's a republic" is kind of a nonsensical retort, and I'm not sure how it got so popular.
There literally are no democracies which do not have representative elements, and "constitutional republic" and "constitutional monarchy" are concepts that are both perfectly compatible with the separate concept of democracy.
> The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a larger republic of a union of republics.
Democracy is a system for choosing government representation, republic is a "res publica" or a "thing of the people" where political power is bestowed upon the people by representatives, they are two sides of keeping a democratic republic.
If the USA isn't democratic but a republic then you don't select your representatives through voting, you can have representatives selected for you, and I don't believe that's the current system of government selection in place, is it?
"The people", who originally were (and are today) the lawful citizens of the several states are party to the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights. Foreigners enjoy 1st Amendment protections at the discretion of the federal government, at best.
A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.
And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?
We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech.
Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
The problem with spam isnt the content, its the quantity.
Lots of spam emails are for genuine services. But its generally accepted that because the speech is unwanted and the quanity of it lowers the quality of the platform, that its fine to filter it off.
Free Speech absolutism should incorporate it, but doesnt. (Which sort of indicates its mostly about broadcasting their opinions rather than being in favour of all speech)
They are welcome to change their moniker to "Free Speech Marginalist" otherwise, if they continue to advertise as absolutist I will continue to insist they live up to it.
Spam is far too obviously not speech is the thing. They will continue to use the moniker "Free Speech absolutist", and ignore you. But keep campaigning as the one lone voice with that, I'll still continue cheering you on while the rest of the world ignores your funny viewpoint that isn't believable for you to actually even have.
I'm a 3/4 black partially Jewish gay man, so you can imagine where I stand on "Free Speech absolutism". While I am for the most part on your "side", I want to stick to arguments that are persuasive.
Spam can be whatever who so happens to be the site moderator, or maybe some very tiny yet obnoxiously vocal minority, wants it to be.
Beyond that practical matter, the least bad definition I have for spam (and this is just off the top of my head right now) is: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Any of us who are being honest with ourselves, maybe with exception to the acutely socially challenged, know spam when we see it.
