DevOps is dead because it's run by a bunch of ops people who don't know how to do dev and a bunch of dev people who don't know how to do ops. The only tooling problem is that a bunch of companies created "DevOps tools" that then get dictated to use: K8s, terraform, etc. The only way this works is if you build the application to fit within those frameworks. Writing an indexer that is massively parallel and is mainly constrained by CPU/Memory. Instead, you have devs building something that gets thrown over the fence to a devops team that then containerizes it and throw it on K8s. What happens if the application requires lots of IOPS or network bandwidth? K8s doesn't schedule applications that way. "Oh you can customize the scheduler to take that into account". 2 years later, it's still not "customized" because they are ops people who don't know how to code. If you do customize it, the API is going to change in a few months which will break when you upgrade.
Would you say it's truly dead or that it fails to meet the performance bar you've described?
The reality is that most devs do not consider a holistic picture that includes the infrastructure they will be deploying to. In many cases, it's certainly a skill issue; good devs are hard to find. And to flip the coin, it's hard to find good ops people too.
The reason DevOps continues to linger, however vague a discipline it is, is because it allows the business to differentiate between revenue generating roles and cost center roles. You want your dev resources to prioritize feature work, at the beckon of PMs or upper management, and let your "DevOps" resources to be responsible for actually getting the product deployed.
In essence, it's a ploy to further commoditize engineering roles, because finding unicorns that understand the picture top-to-bottom is difficult (finding /top/ talent is difficult!). In this way, DevOps is well and alive, as a Romero zombie.
Don't want to get too deep into your analogy. I was addressing the "DevOps cannot code" part. To me it is a leadership failure if a DevOps team is still afraid of tackling bigger challenges (like the example given by the OP). That, of course, depends on whether DevOps teams will exist in the long run.
I've always felt that DevOps became a function/team partly because companies and especially SWE's started complaining that they were spending too much time "doing Ops work" and product/business started demanding more features for which they running out of cycles. And add to that the burnout from being on-call (especially if the dev team is relatively small and you have to go on-call every 2-3 weekends).
> the "DevOps cannot code" part. To me it is a leadership failure
Have you done devops yourself? It sounds like a resounding No. Like you complained ops doesn't like to code (not a core skill for the job), ops complains that devs can't understand basic concepts of how their software runs. Is this also a failure of leadership? Is everyone supposed to know parts of everyone else's jobs?
There are not very many ops people who cannot code. Especially these days. I spent at least the last 20 years doing ops. Ops people are HIGHLY motivated to create things that DON’T FAIL. However, ops teams are often blocked by MANAGERS from doing essentially development in the prod environment. I’m talking about tools and scripts. At the places I’ve worked with the highest uptime, it was because ops had an unlimited, unfettered free hand.
Remove the handcuffs from your ops team and your reliability will SOAR.
Average ops have never been less capable and adverse to programming than now. The problem is getting worse, not better. I know because I am in ops and one of the few who loves to code and accidentally entered the field
No way. I have worked in ops for 20 years now; almost everyone knows how to code. Some enjoy it and some don't, but people are capable of it and will do it when needed.
I agree many can code, though a subset are certainly more scripting than engineering (like a typical 3-tier app)
There is also a subset that is very allergic to coding at this point. I've interviewed enough to see people who only know HCL/yaml. There is enough need and work (waste?) in the space that roles like this can exist
I see where you were coming from now. That sounds more like the Infra team. There are ops teams who are segmented in different ways. In my ops team, I don’t touch the infra and they don’t touch the applications.
I think that any kind of “modern ops” necessarily includes coding, even if there isn’t a ton of Python or Rust being generated as part of the workflow.
Kubernetes deployment configurations and Ansible playbooks are code. PromQL is code. Dockerfiles and cloud-init scripts are code. Terraform HCL is code.
It’s all code I personally hate writing, but that doesn’t make it less valid “software development” than (say) writing React code.
I think you have it backwards. Systems engineering is the big picture discipline of designing & managing complex systems while config management is a specific process within that.
But the same is true of devs. Many of them are pretty clueless about coding. It's a whole generation of "bootcamp people" who were designers or bartenders and heard there were more lucrative jobs.
They are attributing malice/greed to what is more likely just incompetence compounded by inflation. The employees most likely haven't updated the pricing on the shelves. If you have ever been in a DG or DT, you can see that the inventory is generally a mess and just put everywhere. There is one or two people up at the front. They don't have as many people stocking shelves as a grocery store to keep the inventory in order.
This is the most common myths about homeschooling. In reality, the kids at public school sit at a desk most of the time. They don't get to socialize. Most activities are structured. Homeschoolers have CO-OPs, field trips, weekly PE visits, real interactions with adults, and actual free time. They are the most socialized kids in the US. The diversity in the homeschool relationships is quite large which you can see when a homeschooler has discussions with adults while their public school peers just quietly talk amongst themselves.
Growing up, homeschool kids were absolutely weird as hell. Sure, some turn out fine, but it's very hard to do right, and requires parents putting their kids outside of everyone's comfort zone, which is... uncomfortable, so it rarely happens.
The homeschooled neighbor kid from a super religious family absolutely went off the deep end at 18. Many such cases.
You're straw-manning the worst public school experience against the best possible homeschool experience.
> They are the most socialized kids in the US.
Bullshit. You know how I know? Because on average parents are terrible at exposing their kids to Things Not Like Them and Things They Don't Approve Of.
There are great homeschooling parents and crazy ones, but maybe it's not the worst idea to give kids a few hours a day outside their family-approved bubble?
Just in case it's the latter.
Or am I mistaken and all homeschooling in the US requires the child's consent?
I don’t disagree with your final statement, but they’re also not wrong.
Growing up it was well-known that homeschool kids were strange, intelligent in some ways, and completely inept in most ways that mattered.
People who desire to completely shield their children are just as detrimental to their children’s development as those who over-expose. However, in my purely anecdotal experience, the ones who were over-exposed were better off than the former.
And the middle road led to better outcomes overall.
Where were you and others encountering these homeschooled kids if they were locked up in their cosseted homes in which they were apparently never socialized?
As another reply pointed out, maybe these kids are “weird” in some way, maybe they are not. We don’t have more than anecdotes here. More importantly, and to the point of my first reply, we don’t know the motives of their parents. The GP was engaged in mind reading. Certainly, the motives are manifold. One motive may be, “I’m going to home school my kid because he’s weird and won’t do well in a public school.” We don’t know which way the causal arrow points.
>Growing up it was well-known that homeschool kids were strange,
Growing up, it was well-known that in highschool that there was always a small subset of students who were strange. It was so cliche that more than a few sitcoms were founded on that very premise. You could walk up to any stranger age 40 or older, say "you know those weird kids in high school" and they could almost certainly rattle off the list of names even today.
This is because in any large group of kids, some significant percentage of them will be weirdos. Thinking that this is somehow a result of homeschooling is more than simply fallacious, it reveals a prejudice of yours.
The print is a different picture from the one in the submitted article. That looks like it could be a different angle (90deg) of the bird on the same burnt stump.
They are most tired of investing in R&D in the open and then having some company do a patent in their country. The company then sues them for infringement.
Two main mistakes that people make:
1. "scoop and dump" approach to flour. Flour should be spooned into the measuring cup so its not packed in.
2. over-baking cookies due to cooking too long or oven that is too hot or not hot enough.
The flour should not be packed? I've always done it like that, it seemed so obvious that that would give a less random result that having it loose. I guess I'll weigh it and check against the markings on my measuring cup next time.
Some pack, some sift and scoop. You have to know what the recipe wants. Weigh is in my opinion superior, it just wasn’t widely accessible before cheap digital scales.
four is alway sifted - to get the mouse droppings out. In our modern world nobody has mouse droppings in flour but tradition is still strong. Weighing doesn't care but if you are scouping as much air as possible is what the recipe assumes.
RETH* is one of the open source implementations of the Ethereum protocol. Around 2% of Ethereum nodes run it today.
Historically, there have been hundreds of blockchians that were basically slightly modified forks of Ethereum clients, operated by a small group of validators that sacrifice decetralization in order to achieve higher throughput. This seems to be a slightly higher effort verson of that.
Only parts are uninsurable. If a house was built after 2005, it was done with updated hurricane codes. Most are built up higher, have hip roofs, and have their roofs strapped down to cinderblock walls with cement filled in the corners. All new roofs have a "sealed deck". The uninsurable are going to be on the coast (although you can mitigate this in a lot of cases) and low areas.
Side note: all insurance claims are subsidization.
I worry that FEMA's FIRMs will stop reflecting reality in the current political environment. Then many homes will be below flood levels. Then what happens?
