Sorry you quoted me in partial context. I said,

> They're Google wannabies that thinks in Google's scale but forget that it is utterly unnecessary in their case.

Meaning they _unnecessarily_ think in Google's scale when there is no need for it.

I see! My bad then :)

> the people who, when they show up at their Google interview, nail the part about scaling

Having interviewed many tenths of engineers at Amazon - no, not really.

Isn't someone who played with e.g. k8s more likely to understand scaling than someone who never cared about it though?

I think the opposite. K8s hides so many things under layers of NAT that you really dont understand what does and doesnt work.

The 5-15 issue is a self inflicted wound k8s brings to the party that is quite interesting to work around

https://tech.xing.com/a-reason-for-unexplained-connection-ti...

k8s hides away some scalability problems and does not address many others.

Most real scalability issues exist on lower levels and require more theoretical thinking than experimenting with tools.

That's kinda like saying people who use postgres understand query performance more than people who use mysql.

> people who use postgres understand query performance more than people who use mysql

This statement strikes me as likely to be true, at least for database non-experts.

It was certainly true for me. I didn't have anything approaching a decent understanding of query performance until I discovered posgresql's EXPLAIN and, perhaps more importantly, EXPLAIN ANALYZE.

I think it's more like postgres vs csv.