We were 5 people (3 different reservations) traveling from EU to Japan for a ski vacation. Our first flight got canceled due to technical issues with the airplane and we could not get another flight to reach the transfer from Istanbul to Tokyo. We had to get a new flight that delayed our arrival date by 1 day. The worst thing is that they didn't rescheduled our domestic flight from Tokyo to Sapporo.
We went to the check-in for our flight to Sapporo and the staff told us that our flight was actually yesterday... Not wanting to waste another minute with Turkish Airlines support I opened my laptop and got us a new flight and luckily there was a flight in 2 hours.
As our flight was flying off from EU we were covered by the EU rights and all of us got full compensation for the delay - 600 Euro (420 at the end as we used 3rd party to handle it).
Now I'm trying to get full reimbursement for the flight from Tokyo to Sapporo as I payed for it out of pocket. They are arguing that each of us should have an individual invoice and we should have not bought group tickets. For this reason I would highly recommend to use 3rd party (they take between 25-30% commission) just not to deal with airline BS.
Oh, I was worried that NewPipe would break! It's a great app. Currently I use Tubular, though, which is a fork of NewPipe with SponsorBlock and Return dislike embedded in.
As much as I would like to dogpile on Boeing right now, that particular airplane has been in operation since 2015. This would likely be Southwest maintenance issues rather than Boeing.
I think that by now most of the people have started putting the blame on the US aviation and air-transportation industry as a whole, it's not just Boeing anymore. That includes the FTC, the carriers, yes, Boeing, and a ton of other sub-contractors.
It's systemic by this point, and I feel that it's not only the fault of those "pesky MBAs running Boeing" anymore.
"Something else hasn't had a problem before so it must be okay" isn't proof of anything and a fallacy.
There are known unknown structural issues with 737 NG's (-6xx to -9xx non-MAX) beginning around 1995 that have never been resolved because they were assembled poorly and built with substandard "approved" components by subcontractor DuCommun but aren't so serious that they would necessarily cause an immediate, catastrophic failure. Instead, there have been an increase in fuselage damage and failures under heavy load circumstances such as hard landings, runway overruns, and potentially during extreme turbulence. Al Jazerra made a feature-length documentary about it and the tales of the whisleblowers, but because of the predominant anti-muslim bias in America, it has been largely ignored and dismissed by the mainstream. Even Wikipedia includes biased conclusions that Obama's DOJ rammed down the throats of media and countermanded the NTSB's investigations and statements. [0]
This issue is the failure to latch the three latches on the bottom of the engine nacelle, each of which is capable of holding the cowling closed for an entire flight. These latches are supposed to be inspected each time they are used and if they are not latched they will not be flush with the nacelle and should be caught by whichever pilot does the walk-around.
So no, the most plausible conclusion is not a structural failure but that maintenance opened the cowling and then failed to properly latch it and that was not caught by the pilot who did the walk-around.
I hope that I'm wrong here and there is evidence of actual bots, but as far as I can tell you're making this judgement based on the fact the people signing the RMS support letter have Russian sounding names. First off, yes I don't doubt that the totalitarian oppressive and oppressive governments are using this type of technique, in fact they are probably using it a lot because it is highly effective. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that they have any interest in a spat in an, on the whole, insignificant professional organization.
I think it is worth reevaluating your opinion, as understanding the other side of an argument is useful and helps us understand the world better. Generalising, a bit in my experience Russians tend to be slightly technocratic valuing pragmatism over ideology, which seems natural considering that it was beaten out of them by a series of absolutist despots.
Still their opinions are valid even if most people in Europe and the US, no matter their political beliefs, will consider RMS to have perjured himself as an ideological leader to the extent that trust can not be mended, and consequently must resign.
"in my experience Russians tend to be slightly technocratic valuing pragmatism over ideology"
Strange, I always experienced the FSF as ideological and Linux as pragmatical with their grey areas of closed drivers. This reads like the world upside-down :) Is Copyleft Free Software suddenly pragmatic? No offense, mostly just curious.
None taken. My comment wasn't necessarily about Free vs Open source software, but about leaders for the free software movement. From my point of view RMS seems like a strong leader from a technocratic perspective, he has written significant portions of the code for the GNU "operating system" and of course is still the leader of the GNU project. His means of accomplishing his political goals are practical - writing software with copyleft licences and boycotting other alternatives. To accept RMS as a leader we must take a technocratic view we ignore everything but his performance, in a narrow sense.
I myself am no fan of RMS (although I'm also critical of the way he was "cancelled") so it is much harder to put justification for an opinion I don't share to paper but I hope this clears up my previous post somewhat.
Even assuming that each and every one of those signatures has a human behind it, it smells more like a brigading attempt than it does an outpouring of genuine good will toward Stallman from members of the community in good standing.
A sizeable segment of corporate-backed OSS is against Free Software for business reasons, and that mission currently aligns with the interests of the anti-rms mob. Those corporations see the FSF turning into a copy of the neutered OSI as a positive outcome.
Signatories of the support letter have all left links to their GitHub profiles or personal websites. Not comprehensive, but a quick glance of the 20 or so around my signature shows actual humans, most of whom are actively making commits to projects on GitHub in the past year or so.
I understand their rationale. We manage thousand Kubernetes clusters and end-users can find lots and lots of creative way to shoot themselves in the foot:
- I can store anything in a secret? Let's have thousands of cat images. Etcd then stops working because we have over 2GB of funny cats in the key store.
- I can run a root Pod? Lets mount the docker socket and start building images with it. Oh and by the way, I never clean those up and my Node simply fills up. Also I add some additional docker networks that break Pod to Pod networks.
- Istio is nice - why we don't add automatic injection for Pods in all namespaces? Including kube-system? And then they brick kube-proxy and the cluster stops working.
- I can use validating webhooks for better security? Lets watch on all resources. To keep it more secure lets set the failure policy of the webhook to Fail, so we never admit any modification without the apiserver to make a call to out webhook. Whats that? My single replica webhook has was evicted from the Pod (we didn't add any resource requests and limits) and now it cannot even be created or scheduled because kube-controller-manager and kube-scheduler cannot update their lease and they lost leadership and now are idling, effectively bricking the entire cluster.
Google would reduce the pain points with this change, however they would still face countless other issues with Kubernetes.
I fully agree with your points and would sum them up as "Kubernetes has a steep learning curve, a (quite) large interface and ample opportunities to shoot yourself into the foot with it" (plus, they're very funny).
However playing the devil's advocate here: If you actually took the steps of learning the basic abstractions, then for me it's really hard to see what you could still get rid of.
If you actually go all-in and fit your application to the principles of Kubernetes-native applications (instead of the other way around), then it works nothing short to amazing.
We're running 120 microservices in GKE and the difference to our custom-built setup before is night and day. I let my Infra team go surfing together for two weeks because without changes it flies mostly on autopilot.
Let's not kid ourselves, distributed computing is _hard_ and Kubernetes is a testament to that. I'm not saying it can't be made more accessible by further standardization, but there are fundamental limits to how easy it can be made.
Which by the way is leading to my only pet peeve with it: I feel most of the complexity of K8S comes from the fact that it got hyped as an enterprise product and then lots of features were built that support shoving your non cloud-native workload into Kubernetes even if it was never designed for it.
If you don't do or need all of that, the amount of interface, complexity and footguns shrinks significantly. Maybe it's time to better pull them apart in the documentation.
> If you actually took the steps of learning the basic abstractions, then for me it's really hard to see what you could still get rid of.
This argument basically sums up to "Developers just need discipline, and stop blaming the tools". While this is a sound argument on paper, the intrinsic complexity of software systems make it hard to pin the blame on developers. BTW This is the same argument Uncle Bob makes which is not so popular with many mainstream developers.
I get what you're saying, but my point is a bit more nuanced:
If your goal is to build highly reliable and available services to end users that are secure and scalable with a team of more than 10 engineers, eventually you will run into more than 50% of the concepts in Kubernetes anyway and end up re-inventing them.
Scaling up and down, node draining, finding out whether services are healthy, RBAC, resource distribution, secrets management, service hardening, introspection capabilities, explicit declaration of dependencies and endpoints and many, many more.
My point is: Sure, if your goal isn't that, it doesn't make sense to start out using Kubernetes.
But if at least eventually that's what you need, imho it's way preferable to just learn and apply well proven abstractions instead of reinventing the wheel along the way and end up with a less maintainable, capable and standardized solution you won't find anyone for maintaining.
If I hear about some of the comments here suggesting to "just spinning up docker-compose with Traefik in front" (disclaimer: I really like Traefik), then that reminds me of how some of the ops mess started that I historically had to care for.
Agreed, the truth usually lies somewhere in between and my point was we can't absolve the tools/ecosystems and put it on squarely on the devs. That definitely doesn't absolve teams and they need to do their homework before jumping on the bandwagon. K8s is great if you know what you're signing up for.
To a person who isn't using Erlang or ASP.net, suggesting that we should use either of those language packages and it will solve any of our problems without creating a thousand new ones sounds equally non-starterish to me.
To add a counter-example, I have lots of Ruby experience and I've just joined a Go team. I won't tell them to use Ruby, I will just do it where it makes sense and saves us time. (And then we'll have two problems... enter "limiting blast radius")
Point of my counter-example is, I'm extremely skeptical that all the world's problems can be solved by adopting a new mono-culture, whatever it is. There are 100% always gonna be some problems that are better solved in a different language. PHP is the best way to run Wordpress, for example (ok, so it's the only way to run Wordpress, but you get the idea... "Wordpress is the best way to..."), but I've been in high-functioning IT organizations that won't touch that with a ten foot pole, because "it's another language to support, and PHP is icky."
We also got rid of a perfectly fine Wiki in favor of centralized Knowledge-base software for similar reason. "Better to just have one KB. We don't need to be hosting another thing." So the chances of moving everything over to BEAM VM are next to nil, unless you are a product-focused company with just one product, or happen to have an absolute champion leading the effort to migrate all the things. For all the other things, you need to have a consistent answer too.
No tool is one-size-fits-all. Where Kubernetes shines most is under any environment that isn't running a single monolith or building a software monoculture and/or can't manage that for whatever reason (because those are all basic use cases that are frankly easy enough to manage without adding on top the additional complexity of Kubernetes; don't need it, don't use it!) IMHO, diversity in infrastructure is a plus though, and Kubernetes is a technology that it turns out enables this.
Ok, but we have a similar setup that runs on GCE instances. Deploying involves building an image and pushing a button. We don't really have the need for an Infrastructure team.
I once misconfigured iptables and locked myself out of our buildserver. Had to call lab support in a different country. Is Linux too complicated? Joyent famously took down their whole region by rebooting wrong nodes. It’s almost like running distributed networks of supercomputers at scale is hard or something...
I once did an `apt autoremove` on a custom install of CentOS handed to my team. Apt uninstalled python (and a lot more), and apt depends on python to run, so that was a bummer. The easiest way out was to reinstall the OS.
Because mutable persistence in Kubernetes can be super annoying to manage and people might grasp for whatever lifeline they can find.
If you have a managed object store or even relational database outside of k8s, the thought of storing arbitrary data in secrets probably doesn't come to mind. But if your enterprise spools up a cluster and tells you to use nfs PVCs with no other storage solution, suddenly you might start getting creative.
What makes you think Kubernetes "secrets" are appropriate for storing secret information? They're not secure (not without adding a bunch of other nonsense on top of them).
Oh yes secret management with kubectl is needlessly complicated
Sure just put your secret data on a file then we'll use your file name as the key of the secret.
Cronjobs sometimes have weird bugs as well.
A lot of its complexity is due to the fact it's an evolving system, that's fine. But I see that some things end up way more complex or unreliable than it needs due to overengineering or use cases no one needs
Claiming AngularJS got killed by Google (or rather will be) because they redesigned and at the same time renamed it to just Angular and stop working on an old LTS release? That's not how any of this works.
> The reality is that, when a lot of people claim Google kills all its products, what they really mean is something like: "Google canceled Google Reader, and I still don't forgive them."
This and the rest is a fair comment. Thank you for linking it. I'll personally be getting off the Google kills everything bandwagon (I'll stay on the Google is creepy as fuck bandwagon but that's unrelated)
A couple of their examples at least seem a bit off - apparently Youtube Music isn't as good as the previous one, and Wave, while incorporated a bit into their office products, lacks the central feature that made Wave Wave.
Yes but a couple being off doesn't make the rest of the comment less accurate. The change that has happened is no longer "Google kills everything" but more "Google merges products into each other half arsedly"
Maybe that's worse for you? Not for me to decide. I'm not using Google services as best I can either way because they're an advertising company, but I will stop my personal contribution prattling off the Google closes everything comments.
I speak only for myself, a pet peeve on this site is people thinking every comment is a proclamation from the almighty. I'm just a fat bastard sitting on a toilet reading HN, I'm not telling you what to do
For me it is a matter of investing time and interest into products. I still remember discovering Google Spaces and thinking that it was something I could actually use to plan activities and stuff, only for it to be cancelled in a couple of weeks.
Some features made it, but what I've heard from the people that used it was the complete redesign toward tasks instead of emails was what made it valuable, which hasn't happened to gmail.
> Google Wave -> Realtime collaboration in Google Docs/Slides/Sheets
The closest equivalent now is actually Slack. Google was too early to the party and didn't realize what could come of it.
Google Wave was going to be revolutionary, not because it was a chat system, but because it was to be an open system, not the walled garden that Slack and other messaging platforms are.
Some of those I agree with, some I don't. For example, Google Listen was definitely killed. I used to use it and there was no migration path to anything else Google. I think Google Music didn't do podcasts then, and regardless it still doesn't if you're outside the US or Canada. So definitely killed.
For Google+, it says "Google Photos, Chat + Meet, Calendar Features, etc.", but these are in almost no way equivalent to a social media style stream with communities and circles and such.
Similar with Latitude, IIRC it was merged into G+ and then killed. The equivalent feature didn't exist at the time (not sure if it does now, my cause to use it then no longer applies.)
more people are offended by the word master than git, I still don’t think it was a good comparison, also the connotation of Master Theses, mastering C++, remastered album is also much different.
Facepalmed and decided that this is it for today.
reply