> tone of the article was to be critical

I mean... it's Musk. The shit-on-Musk phenomenon has transcended normality. Reddit has about six subreddits that do nothing apart from constantly shit on him. Twitter is infested with users/bots that do nothing apart from post the 'this mf paid for twitter' meme. Articles like this come out week after week after week. And yet, the site stays up and the products, by and large, work.

It's just one of those things that presumably makes sense to somebody but doesn't to me.

> It's just one of those things that presumably makes sense to somebody but doesn't to me.

Normal journalism at work: one people pays, the other one writes.

I mean, that's the usual answer when it comes to yellow journalism but it still leaves the question of who's paying and why in particular him, because the Musk ecosystem is not one that's particularly hard to avoid; if you don't own a Tesla and don't use Starlink you're 99% of the way there.

It's just odd the amount of online hate the guy garners considering how narrow his reach really is.

I actually was also inspired by it.

The reality is you can take months to plan it , have it be really expensive to try to get 100% accurate, but that may not be the most efficient way.

It may be better from a trade off perspective to take this approach way more frequently than we realize.

Have you worked in datacenters? This isn't pushing back on BS and waste, it's ignoring user privacy, security, server reliability (and lifespan), site reliability, vendor relationships and in a lot of cases actual laws.

The shit I get when I bring a small piece of cardboard into the DC here. The strict rules are there for a reason.

This, I really saw nothing there that I would not have done, if I had the money to pay for damages. The floor caving, losing a rack, causing a surge, etc, are small risks comparing to that he was trying to save, and to what he was trying to prove to his team. The only thing that would not be tolerable was having someone die in the process, but then he went under the floor himself. I respect that and really I think the article seems to be written by someone in infra that wants to protect some form of status quo?

The fact is that there are "rules" because they are needed to cover all the possible ground. Yeah, one lone operation can skip on almost all the rules and still be successful, but that doesn't prove anything. Rules are needed at scale, to try to cover for unlucky coincidences, people not that smart, unforeseen (by you) consequences etc etc

I guess the point is to find opportunities to do better than the average, not that the average should not exist. That’s often where competitive advantages arise. Most people can’t identify or execute on them because rules.