jobegrabber
>That's the point. They are NOT!
Your private pension might not be - but with Health Care, business expenses and certain type of insurances there's more than "virtually no deductible costs" though.
There's a lot of stuff that seems unfair, I agree. I'm not here to debate that you pay more into the system as others and don't get more benefits from it - but the picture you're painting of a 70 % overall tax rate and "not a lot to live on" strikes me as a bit too grim.
Is that for all your income or "just" over a certain threshold?
>Even if you make some good money, that does not leave you with a lot to live.
You said you travelled to different countries in Europe, Africa and Asia. Do you consider that not leaving you with a lot to live?
>with virtually no deductible costs you pay taxes first, and then have to take care about health care, insurances and pension afterwards
Those are all, up to a certain degree, deductible from your taxes, right?
You're well off, you're earning a lot, you're privileged enough to be able to travel often and to a lot of places, some quite far away. You're in position where you can basically freely choose where to live next, by the sound of it.
One of the foundations of Germany is the principle of solidarity and that owning property bears social responsibility. That means that people who earn and possess more than others may and most often do have to contribute more to society than others. Or in simple terms, as you earn and own more, you're benefitting less from "the system". Just want to make it clear that this is by design..
You'll most probably find a place that will make your personal life objectively easier, i.e. taking less money from your paycheck.
I honestly hope you will find a happier life!
I imagine you have a similar approach, what's clunky about it for you?
It doesn't have to be neutral in my opinion. But it should clearly separate personal judgement or opinion from facts and overall rational.
In the "About me" section the author says:
>Originally I started this site attacking the big corporate interests (Google, IBM and VMWare) that drove this effort forward, but that really doesn’t speak to my intended audience. It also came off as acerbic, which I am fine with in regards to corporations and their CEOs, it does not do justice to all the engineers that slaved over the Kubernetes project. So I deleted those posts. Now, I just want to start, provoke, prod, or push a dialog forward, because if you just follow the tech blogs, you would think we should be running a Kubernetes cluster on our lawn mowers.
Even if the blog is not about simply "attacking the big corporate interests" anymore, the language clearly puts forward the post's agenda.
In my opinion, the post should have a different title, one that is clearly indicating the author's intention to highlight the negative things about Kubernetes and the documentary.
In more or less informal discussions, I agree. From my POV it's not about a singular word though, it's about the context: The author labelled the (entire) code base of Kubernetes as "shit":
>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.
It's not that it's not "nice" language, it's about the statement. It could very well be that the code base of Kubernetes is in a bad state, but with this wording and without any references, it doesn't come off as neutral or particularly reasonable.
It clearly doesn't label the current state of the code base as a clusterfuck in general.
>The clusterfuck hidden in the Kubernetes code base and the brilliant refactoring techniques developed to fix it
and saying
>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.
especially since the former talks about techniques that fixed the "clusterfuck".
I know you didn't bring that talk into the discussion, however you didn't cite any sources at all. From my POV simply stating that the Kubernetes code base is "shit" without extending on it comes off as anything but neutral and fair.
If you want to sound reasonable, I would either make clear that that sentiment is your personal opinion and/or comes from your experience, or at least cite some sources.
Yes, you don't need Kubernetes to come up with your own implicit or explicit API boundaries, and these might not be needed for smaller projects. I agree that Kubernetes is often used where it's not strictly needed.
There are things which strict abstraction, and with it, separation of concerns provide. The crucial point is that certain things are enforced.
And the author says
>No critical conversations about Kubernetes are taking place, aside from outspoken critics on HackerNews or Slashdot, but those are few and far between.
The author's agenda is about highlighting that "Kubernetes is not a good solution for most if not all cloud deployments".
I'd say there's quite a decent chance that bias is involved. At least a chance bigger than Kubernetes not being a good solution for any cloud deployment.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Kubernetes is the best solution for all cloud deployments. From my POV it might not even be the best solution for most cloud deployments. But I think there's bias involved if one is even considering the possibility that Kubernetes is always a bad solution.
Regarding modifying the source material and cropping it to 4:3, that's something I find odd as well and I personally find is not fitting.