I am so glad I did not pursue a job with them out of college, infosys that is. I told them I was no longer interested and they kept calling my parent's house and even tried recruiting my sister who was in HS.
How they go about stuff with that felt so weird, cause I would never get the same recruiter, makes sense they would do something like this.
This depends on how your relationship with your boss is and how they are. I once encountered the start of burn out and told my boss, and he said to go do something fun. So I played video games while he covered for me and let me know if I was needed for a meeting. It was great and I skirted burn out.
- Should I take time off? How much? Or should I try to work reduced hours?
I have taken up backpacking and have loved taking a day off or two to go out into the woods. I really love just disconnecting from the world.
- If I continue working, is there something in my working environment I should try to change?
Maybe try different text editors? I don't know if doing that would bring more stress as you have to learn new stuff. But, maybe you want to learn it, its up to you.
- Is there anything specific to working in tech and burning out that I should know about?
Burnout as I have been told and experienced is normal, but its usually a sign that something is off like a lot more work has been thrown at you or your team, or you feel like your contributions are not getting the attention you want. Or, you just want to not work because your brain is tired of always working.
As for boredom and not liking it, I have found that it pays to do nothing some times and just daydream at home, doing absolutely nothing. It helps my brain rest and clear out all its stressors.
Also keep in mind this advice is what works for me, but it may work for you. Take it with a grain of salt.
This feels like a post ranting against SystemD written from someone who likes init.
I understand that K8 does many things but its also how you look at the problem. K8 does one thing well, manage complex distributed systems such as knowing when to scale up and down if you so choose and when to start up new pods when they fail.
Arguably, this is one problem that is made up of smaller problems that are solved by smaller services just like SystemD works.
Sometimes I wonder if the Perlis-Thompson Principle and the Unix Philosophy have become a way to force a legalistic view of software development or are just out-dated.
I don't find the comparison to systemd to be convincing here.
The end-result of systemd for the average administrator is that you no longer need to write finicky, tens or hundreds of line init scripts. They're reduced to unit files which are often just 10-15 lines. systemd is designed to replace old stuff.
The result of Kubernetes for the average administrator is a massively complex system with its own unique concepts. It needs to be well understood if you want to be able to administrate it effectively. Updates come fast and loose, and updates are going to impact an entire cluster. Kubernetes, unlike systemd, is designed to be built _on top of_ existing technologies you'd be using anyway (cloud provider autoscaling, load balancing, storage). So rather than being like systemd, which adds some complexity and also takes some away, Kubernetes only adds.
> So rather than being like systemd, which adds some complexity and also takes some away, Kubernetes only adds.
Here are some bits of complexity that managed Kubernetes takes away:
* SSH configuration
* Key management
* Certificate management (via cert-manager)
* DNS management (via external-dns)
* Auto-scaling
* Process management
* Logging
* Host monitoring
* Infra as code
* Instance profiles
* Reverse proxy
* TLS
* HTTP -> HTTPS redirection
So maybe your point was "the VMs still exist" which is true, but I generally don't care because the work required of me goes away. Alternatively, you have to have most/all of these things anyway, so if you're not using Kubernetes you're cobbling together solutions for these things which has the following implications:
1. You will not be able to find candidates who know your bespoke solution, whereas you can find people who know Kubernetes.
2. Training people on your bespoke solution will be harder. You will have to write a lot more documentation whereas there is an abundance of high quality documentation and training material available for Kubernetes.
3. When something inevitably breaks with your bespoke solution, you're unlikely to get much help Googling around, whereas it's very likely that you'll find what you need to diagnose / fix / work around your Kubernetes problem.
4. Kubernetes improves at a rapid pace, and you can get those improvements for nearly free. To improve your bespoke solution, you have to take the time to do it all yourself.
5. You're probably not going to have the financial backing to build your bespoke solution to the same quality caliber that the Kubernetes folks are able to devote (yes, Kubernetes has its problems, but unless you're at a FAANG then your homegrown solution is almost certainly going to be poorer quality if only because management won't give you the resources you need to build it properly).
Respectfully, I think you have a lot of ignorance about what a typical cloud provider offers. Let's go through these each step-by-step.
> SSH configuration
Do you mean the configuration for sshd? What special requirements would have that Kubernetes would help fulfill?
> Key management
Assuming you mean SSH authorized keys since you left this unspecified. AWS does this with EC2 instance connect.
> Certificate management (via cert-manager)
AWS has ACM.
> DNS management (via external-dns)
This is not even a problem if you use AWS cloud primatives. You point Route 53 at a load balancer, which automatically discovers instances from a target group.
In what sense? Amazon target groups can monitor the health of a service and automatically replace instances that report unhealthy, time out, or otherwise.
> Infra as code
I mean, you have to have a description somewhere of your pods. It's still "infra as code", just in the form prescribed by Kubernetes.
> Instance profiles
Instance profiles are replaced by secrets, which I'm not sure is better, just different. In either case, if you're following best practices, you need to configure security policies and apply them appropriately.
> Reverse proxy
AWS load balancers and target groups do this for you.
> HTTPS
AWS load balancers, CloudFront, do this for you. ACM issues the certificates.
I won't address the remainder of your post because it seems contingent on the incorrect assumption that all of these are "bespoke solutions" that just have to be completely reinvented if you choose not to use Kubernetes.
> I won't address the remainder of your post because it seems contingent on the incorrect assumption that all of these are "bespoke solutions" that just have to be completely reinvented if you choose not to use Kubernetes.
You fundamentally misunderstood my post. I wasn't arguing that you had to reinvent these components. The "bespoke solution" is the configuration and assembly of these components ("cloud provider primitives" if you like) into a system that suitably replaces Kubernetes for a given organization. Of course you can build your own bespoke alternative--that was the prior state of the world before Kubernetes debuted.
You still need to figure out where your persistent storage is.
You still have to send logs somewhere for aggregation.
You have the added difficulty of figuring out cost tracking in Kubernetes since there is not a clear delineation between cloud resources.
You have to configure an ingress controller.
You want SSL? Gotta set that up, too.
You have to figure out how pods are assigned to nodes in your cluster, if separation of services is at all a concern (either for security or performance reasons).
Kubernetes is no better with the creation of "bespoke solutions" than using what your cloud provider offers.
Compare this tutorial for configuring SSL for Kubernetes services to an equivalent for configuring SSL on an AWS load balancer. Is Kubernetes really adding value here?
Kubernetes is far better for each of the above tasks because it is a consistent approach and set of abstractions rather than looking through the arbitrary "everything store" of the cloud providers. I really don't have any interest in relying on 15 different options from cloud providers, I want to get going with a set of extensible, composable abstractions and control logic. Software should not be tied to the hardware I rent or the marketing whims of said entity.
Yes, there is choice and variety among Kubernetes extensions, but they all have fundamental operational assumptions that are aligned because they sit inside the Kubernetes control and API model. It is a golden era to have such a rich set of open and elegant building blocks for modern distributed systems platform design and operations.
Well, first of all, note how much shorter your list is than the original. So vanilla Kubernetes is already taking care of lots of things for us (SSH configuration, process management, log exfiltration, etc). Moreover, we're not talking about vanilla Kubernetes, but managed Kubernetes (I've been very clear and explicit about this) so most of your points are already handled.
> You still need to figure out where your persistent storage is.
Managed Kubernetes comes with persistent storage solutions out of the box. I don't know what you mean by "figure out where it is". On EKS it's EFS, on GKE it's FileStore, and of course you can use other off-the-shelf solutions if you prefer, but there are defaults that you don't have to laboriously set up.
> You still have to send logs somewhere for aggregation.
No, these too are automatically sent to CloudWatch or equivalent (maybe you have to explicitly say "use cloudwatch" in some configuration option when setting up the cluster, but still that's a lot different than writing ansible scripts to install and configure fluentd on each host).
> You have the added difficulty of figuring out cost tracking in Kubernetes since there is not a clear delineation between cloud resources.
This isn't true at all. Your cloud provider still rolls up costs by type of resource, and just like with VMs you still have to tag things in order to roll costs up by business unit.
> You have to configure an ingress controller.
Nope, this also comes out of the box with your cloud provider. It hooks into the cloud provider's layer 7 load balancer offering. It's also trivial to install other load balancer controllers.
> You want SSL? Gotta set that up, too. ... Compare this tutorial for configuring SSL for Kubernetes services to an equivalent for configuring SSL on an AWS load balancer. Is Kubernetes really adding value here?
If you use cert-manager and external-dns, then you'll have DNS and SSL configured for every service you ever create on your cluster. By contrast, on AWS you'll need to manually associate DNS records and certificates with each of your load balancers. Configuring LetsEncrypt for your ACM certs is also quite a lot more complicated than for cert-manager.
> Kubernetes is no better with the creation of "bespoke solutions" than using what your cloud provider offers.
I hope by this point it's pretty clear that you're mistaken. Even if SSL/TLS is no easier with Kubernetes than with VMs/other cloud primitives, we've already addressed a long list of things you don't need to contend with if you use managed Kubernetes versus cobbling together your own system based on lower level cloud primitives. And Kubernetes is also standardized, so you can rely on lots of high quality documentation, training material, industry experience, FAQ resources (e.g., stack overflow), etc which you would have to roll yourself for your bespoke solution.
Right, I really dislike systemd in many ways ... but I love what it enables people to do and accept that for all my grumpyness about it, it is overall a net win in many scenarios.
k8s ... I think is often overkill in a way that simply doesn't apply to systemd.
If you have to manage a large distributed software code base or set of datacenters, Kubernetes is a win in that it provides a consistent, elegant solution to a nearly universal set of problems.
Systemd comparatively feels like a complete waste of time given the heat it has generated for the benefit.
In my work, absolutely yes. Using Kubernetes has saved us sooo much nonsense. Yes we have a mix of Terraform and k8s manifests to deploy to Azure Kubernetes Service, but it works out pretty well in the end.
Honestly most of the annoyance is Azure stuff. Kubernetes stuff is pretty joyful and, unlike Azure, the documentation sometimes even explains how it works.
Kubernetes cluster changes potentially create issues for all services operating in that cluster.
Provisioning logic that is baked into an image means changes to one service have no chance of affecting other services (app updates that create poor netizen behavior, notwithstanding). Rolling back an AMI is as trivial as setting the AMI back in the launch template and respinning instances.
There is a lot to be said for being able to make changes that you are confident will have a limited scope.
Does Kubernetes infrastructure also not require some form of configuration?
Yes, there is a trade off here. You are trading a staggeringly complex external dependency for a little bit of configuration you write yourself.
The Kubernetes master branch weighs in at ~4.6 million lines of code right now. Ansible sits at ~286k on their devel branch (this includes the core functionality of Ansible but not every single module). You could choose not to even use Ansible and just write a small shell script that builds out an image which does something useful in less than 500 lines of your own code, easily.
Kubernetes does useful stuff and may take some work off your plate. It's also a risk. If it breaks, you get to keep both of the pieces. Kubernetes occupies the highly unenviable space of having to do highly available network clustering. As a piece of software, it is complex because it has to be.
Most people don't need the functionality provided by Kubernetes. There are some niceties. But if I have to choose between "this ~500 line homebrew shell script broke" and "a Kubernetes upgrade went wrong" I know which one I am choosing, and it's not the Kubernetes problem.
Managed Kubernetes, like managed cloud services, mitigate some of those issues. But you can still end up with issues like mismatched node sizes and pod resource requirements, so there is a bunch of unused compute.
TL;DR of course there are trade-offs, no solution is magic.
Fair, I was just pointing out that there was more to the analogy. Systemd, like init, also requires configuration, though it is more declarative than imperative, similar to k8s. Some people may prefer this style and consider it easier to manage, however, I my opinions here are not that strong
Kubernetes removes the complexity of keeping a process (service) available.
There’s a lot to unpack in that sentence, which is to say there’s a lot of complexity it removes.
Agree it does add as well.
I’m not convinced k8s is a net increase in complexity after everything is accounted for. Authentication, authorization, availability, monitoring, logging, deployment tooling, auto scaling, abstracting the underlying infrastructure, etc…
> Kubernetes removes the complexity of keeping a process (service) available.
Does it really do that if it you just use it to provision an AWS load balancer, which can do health checks and terminate unhealthy instances for you? No.
Sure, you could run some other ingress controller but now you have _yet another_ thing to manage.
Do AWS load balancers distinguish between "do not send traffic" and "needs termination"?
Kubernetes has readiness checks and health checks for a reason. The readiness check is a gate for "should receive traffic" and the health check is a gate for "should be restarted".
> K8 does one thing well, manage complex distributed systems such as knowing when to scale up and down if you so choose and when to start up new pods when they fail.
K8S does very simple stateless case well, but anything more complicated and you are on your own. Statefull services is still a major pain especially thus with leader elections. There is not feedback to K8S about application state of the cluster, so it can't know which instancess are less disruptive to shut down or which shard needs more capacity.
> I understand that K8 does many things but its also how you look at the problem. K8 does one thing well, manage complex distributed systems such as knowing when to scale up and down if you so choose and when to start up new pods when they fail.
Also, in the sense of "many small components that each do one thing well", k8s is even more Unix-like than Unix in that almost everything in k8s is just a controller for a specific resource type.
Not exactly correct, the Supreme Court still has to accept the appeal onto its docket. Many of times, the Supreme Court will disregard the case and leave it to the lower courts to hash out.
> Given that our deployment platform was Linux (for a .Net Core 3.0 project), I was determined to use Linux and VS Code for development. That was a fail; the verbose nature of C# and the Framework APIs make it impossible to be productive without significant help from a full-fledged IDE like Visual Studio.
I have had and continue to have the opposite experience of you. I use Ubuntu with VS Code and a few C# plugins that have greatly allowed me to navigate the .NET Core framework and write code with minimal references.
Even, with Visual Studio (unless you use R#), you will always run into issues where you aren't sure where the function or class lives. That's why you go read the documentation or ask SO.
The more you write webapi's the easier it is.
> Structural Typing
Dynamic was the closest to it, but it has significant performance issues. Tuples and structs do exist also.
> Allow functions outside of classes
No.
> Verbosity in C#
????
> most popular libraries will nudge you strongly to use
Dependency Injection throughout the app and implement everything as a class and to extract interfaces out of it.
You do realize C# is mostly a strong Object Oriented language hence why they (the libraries) urge you to do that.
I don't understand why someone at Dropbox's size and scale would go after C++ on mobile and blaze their own trail, when its probably more pragmatic to go native.
With that being said, I worked for a firm that extended the life of old ERP systems and we had to do a few mobile apps, we chose Xamarin because we were a shop of 7ish devs that had many projects to maintain and the cost of code sharing and familiarity with C# were our driving factors. It was a trade off most definitely but it was a pragmatic choice as well.
If you are capable of hiring more developers who know Java or Obj-C and can allow them to do only mobile development then its worth it to go native.
But, if you are a small company and know that Java,C# and Obj-C, C# developers are a little bit hard to find (depending on your developer market) then its probably more cost effective to go Xamarin or any other cross-platform code sharing model.
iOS requires AOT compilation as interpreted/bytecode languages AFAIK are restricted to the Nitro JS engine. With Android it compiles with a .NET runtime included IIRC.
I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.
You know you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
So, maybe 8chan just ran past the fine line of hate speech vs encouraging acts of hate. I.e you can be racist but you cannot encourage acts of extremism.
If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
Little known fact about the phrase "fire in a crowded theater": it was coined in a criminal case against a man who was distributing leaflets criticizing the draft during World War 1. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by comparing those leaflets to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" -- even though most readers here would agree that those two things are nothing alike.
I think there's a lesson in that: when we tolerate any censorship, it will inevitably be used by the powerful to oppress the powerless. If the powerful need to compare the targeted speech to "fire in a crowded theater" or "Nazism" or whatever, they'll do it whether it makes sense or not.
Yeah but on the other hand you shouldn't be able to shout fire in a crowded theater so you need some censorship. As with like 99% of political arguments is about finding the line because the absolutist arguments generally end up kinda silly.
It's never just used for the original case either.
Now that 8chan is down why not every other site with a subset of (violent?) racist users?
By doing something about one and not doing anything about another, is Cloudflare not basically giving their ideology a greenlight to exist? This is the type of backwards anti-intellectual thinking that will seep into the decision making.
"Slippery slopes" are a cliche for a reason when talking about this stuff because it never stops with one really good example nor within a very narrow scope. Making this debate all about 8chan misses the larger point because it sets a precedent. There's already tons of people who want way more than 8chan banned from the internet.
The problem for 8chan wasn't having bad users, every place has those, it was the specific way which it enabled them. Reddit or Facebook make effort to take down extremist threats, which puts them in a different league altogether. I'm fine with taking down places that enable them in that way and it hasn't seemed to have led to the slippery slope you are worried about so far.
The point is slippery slopes don't stop after the fact.
The next time twitter blows up at Cloudflare [or insert tech company name] over a tragedy what's going to happen?
Does this apply to Islamic Extremism or some radical groups in Ukraine or some hypothetical Flemish separatist group who is openly violent and posts similar un-moderated content? Or is it only for some highly touchy US problems since they're a US company or the topic got the most noise on Twitter/news sites?
Private companies are incentivized to make money, they can host and kick off whoever the hell they want. I don't understand what you're getting at? It's capitalism at work.
If 8chan wants to exist on the internet without worrying about being knocked offline then 8chan needs to either build their infrastructure or find companies that are willing to risk their reputation to support them.
Did you know that the "fire in a crowded room" metaphor comes from Schenck v. United States in which Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr used the metaphor to defend the criminality of protesting the military draft?
I'm not sure if that's the kind of history you want to align yourself with.
The other irony is that the holding of Schenk vs. United States was later overturned in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, which set the line for where free speech becomes unprotected at "inciting imminent lawless action":
Brandenburg overturned the specifics of Schenk, not the idea of free speech having limits. "There are valid limits of free speech" remains as true as ever.
I'd had a paragraph after that said "You can, in fact, yell "fire" in a crowded theater without breaking any laws", but edited it out because in certain situations this would also violate the revised test in Brandenburg (you still can't incite a riot legally, for example). But that paragraph made it a bit more clear that yes, the irony I'm talking about is that the specific examples in Schenk are no longer law, not the general principle that free speech has limits. The limits are significantly less restrictive than Schenk held, though.
My point is that the phrase has a history of being used to criminalize speech that most people would now see as being worthy of protection. For those using it today, the burden is really on the accuser to show that they aren't doing the same.
> I mean, I wouldn't use analogies that were originally created to target people who disagreed with the draft.
> Whether or not the analogy applies now, is irrelevant. It's history makes it a bad analogy.
I appreciate your motivation, but I just can't get behind this line of reasoning. For one thing, most people aren't aware of the history.
For another, almost every good idea has a tainted history. (e.g. the golden rule. "Eh that? That's just something that Jesus guy said, and look how many people his followers killed in the crusades, witch-hunts, etc.")
Lastly, it's just not a form of rational thinking. Obviously the connotations of our words matter, but unless we can separate the connotation from the denotation we have no hope of arriving at the truth.
In that case, wouldn't it be more that it isn't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater with the express purpose to cause injury during a stampede? Would doing so "just as a prank bro" still be protected under American precedent?
I'm not a Constitutional or 1A scholar, but I believe the test remains whether the speech is substantially likely to result in "imminent lawless action". Whether you wanted people to get trampled, or just thought it was a lulz thing to do, exigently emptying a crowded room on false pretenses is probably going to yield some pretty lawless behavior.
EDIT: Even so, that test was IIRC conceived as a means of measuring whether political speech — specifically, advocating the use of force or criminal behavior — was 1A-protected, so I really wonder whether this line of thought isn't moot.
> I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.
There are already limits to free speech that most people don't complain about. The most frequent example is defamation.
I do like how Canada handles hate speed -- like defamation, it is illegal. There's really no benefit to protecting hate speech. If you argue it is a slippery slope, we're already on a slope with defamation so the benefits of adding hate speech out weight the risks of slipping further.
I supposed I should have mentioned how Canada defines illegal hate speech, because that has a clear definition too. The type of hate speech that is illegal there is hate speech that advocates or incites violence or genocide. That's clear and defines how it is damaging, therefore it's not definitively slippery.
Hate speech is illegal in Canada because it infringes on the right to security of the person - a Charter right. Freedom of speech is also protected, but the expression of one right cannot diminish the protection of another.
> I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.
widely known and not really legally disputed.
> You know you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
this seems like empty rhetoric; we already know that there are classes of speech that aren't 1A protected. this isn't controversial.
> If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
whether or not people "are okay" with something isn't relevant when discussing the legality of said thing, which seems to be what the rest of your post is focused on. so this seems like a red herring, or alternatively, the rest of your post was a red herring.
if your line of reasoning about the closure is legally oriented, then i'm sure you can find lots of things people aren't okay with, e.g. campaign finance.
I don't think there's a contradiction between supporting freedom of expression and suggesting that such a freedom isn't absolute. There are limits, particularly when the use of that freedom treads on the freedoms of others.
Even US law recognizes this. You're not allowed to invite violence or rioting for example. There are also rules about perjury, liable, and other things that directly limit freedom of expression.
The real questions we should be asking here are where the line is between stating an opinion and inciting violence... And what should ISPs and edge providers be asked/allowed to do?
Because not being forced to provide a platform for the speech of someone else may also be a valid freedom. If I come into your property and say things you don't like, are you allowed to ask me to leave? What if I put up a sign in my front yard? Can I take it down?
IMO, we need neutrality regulations to protect ourselves from the corporations who control everything we see... But such neutrality regulations must necessarily include ISPs as well as edge providers. Otherwise they're worthless.
Not the OP, but I think you're missing the point of the question; the question is about hypocrisy. I think the poster was trying to say "a lot of people who claim that they love free speech would suddenly become really uncomfortable with the idea of a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists".
The "fire in a crowded theater" metaphor is always mentioned in a discussion of free speech. It's like Godwin's Law. I'm tired of it.
You can say anything. But if the thing you say carries consequences beyond the utterance, the freedom of speech does not immunize that sayer from assuming responsibility for those consequences.
It's not about what happens afterward. It's about not removing someone's voice, for fear of what they might say with it.
8chan is not required to support freedom of speech; it's not the government. It is itself free to pick and choose who is allowed to use its platform. My opinion is that it should not engage in content-based censorship, because no one should. Once you start doing that, there's no ethically clear place where the line between acceptable and unacceptable should lie. If you can make a case for banning neo-Nazis and Boko Haram and Sinaloa Cartel and such, you can also make a case for banning people who put pineapple on pizza or ketchup on hot dogs, with the argument variables set to different values.
Information is not the dangerous thing, nor misinformation. When someone is recruited and turned into a soldier via online image boards, using the exact same psychology as state-based militaries around the world--dehumanizing the xeno, and propagandizing them as an existential threat to the in-group identity tribe--that isn't the fault of the medium. It is the responsibility of the recruiter, the propagandist.
The rightful answer to speech with undesired consequences is not censorship, but counter-propaganda, and to some extent psychological hardening of the whole populace, by encouraging skepticism, critical thought, and formation of individual identity and self-image over group identities.
The former is a more active measure that unfortunately requires a bloody-minded relentlessness combined with unending tolerance for nonsense. Imagine a Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate that lasts literally forever, and the toll that would surely take on Nye. Now sub in a pants-on-head flat-earther time-cube woo-woo troll for Ham. No one person could take it. And that's why when these fools show up, the thought-terminating cliches have to be countered with thought-provoking dissent. If you see bullshit, call bullshit.
And the latter is something that probably has to happen in young people, coming with a side effect of making them less governable, and harder to convince of anything. Resistance to radicalization over the Internet would directly translate to more difficult military recruiting, drops in the strength of religious affiliations, and harder political campaigns. Not exactly popular among those loving god and country.
It's probably easier to just censor the things the state doesn't want people to say, and just trust that they will stop with the threshold line in the correct place.
> you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
Of course you can yell 'fire' in a crowded room and not have any charges that stick brought against you. Are you arguing the point it is not allowed to yell to a large audience? Or there is something else here you are not mentioning, like for example whether or not the statement is true is the actual crux of the matter? Of course you can yell 'fire' in a crowded room - if there is a fire!
If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
Strangely enough, most people who find censorship ideologically palatable consider Jihadists a more sympathetic group than Incels. Note that ISIS beheadings have been subject to far less censorship than the Christchurch shooter's propaganda, for example.
I make a factual claim you can investigate on your own. Perhaps your findings will surprise you. As an aside, I recommend engaging with people you disagree with politically to understand their motivations and opinions. Much of political discourse is superficially ridiculous, but almost everything can be made sense of and appreciated once you get a view of the whole picture. Good luck.
To Catholics, as with all Christians, God is Jesus Christ.[1]
The Islamic view is that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet.[2][3] (The audio answer is a bit long, but quite good.)
The argument that Allah is the same as the Father in the Christian trinity depends on various heresies[4] (incorrect claims), maybe one of Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Tritheism.
So, no, neither religion accepts that they are one and the same. And this is due to central tenets of each respective faith.
Haha, well, I'm skeptical that obscure exegesis is much of a way to get closer to God, though maybe for this audience it could be.
As it's impossible to quantify the unknown, when we approach a subject we're not familiar with, our bias is to assume it's very simple. So I think it's helpful to dig in a little to give a hint at the vast amount of scholarly work done on these subjects.
I’m definitely not talking about a revolution in a sense of violent overthrow of the government. I’m merely talking about revolutionary changes to the voting system. More specifically how the votes are counted towards each representative. I don’t have a source for this, but I think most Americans would actually be quite happy with the idea of switching out the election system for something objectively better.
How they go about stuff with that felt so weird, cause I would never get the same recruiter, makes sense they would do something like this.