As you noted, thar was procedural rather than reactive — Dallas passed a similar “form-based” code almost a decade earlier that Austin is using as inspiration, I believe, and it’s only been expanded since [1].
Austin also just passed a historic public transit capital program via referendum that the GOP was openly against, and though the state government could have used some shady but technically legal tactics to prevent Austin from building a subway under a state-owned park (simply by refusing to bring a bill up for a vote rather than actively taking the right away, too!), they didn’t and gave Austin a 99 year lease on the ground rights for $1. [2]
Dallas and Austin are currently in a competition to ban parking minimums, which funnily enough has found much bipartisan agreement [3]
Yeah I suppose the laws currently being passed in dozens of states across the country are actually fully in support of LGBTQ+ communities and aren't in fact discrimination.
Agreed, this is one of the biggest issues I see. Anywhere you install a custom controller essentially has access to ~all of your resources. What could go wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean by too many things ended up as custom resources -- it's the recommended extension point and you can do a lot with them that you can't do with core types.
Custom resources had/have some growing pains but I think worked out pretty well. It can be very very hard to test and distribute them though. As someone who maintained a controller with paid support, your test matrix gets pretty large pretty fast accounting for different k8s versions, different hosted versions (GKE, AKS, etc), different distros (openshift, rancher, etc). And that's before you even get into specific configurations like pod security policies, can the control plane communicate with the data plane, is there a service mesh.
Resource versioning is hard to get right. Once a resource type is v1, it becomes difficult to extend it. You can't add a beta field to it easily. Revising schema can be hard since anything more than a no op conversion between versions requires a webhook, which requires a certificate chain, and while cert-manager is popular it is not ubiquitous and regularly has breaking changes. Webhook setup issues made up a large portion of our support requests.
As far as the general "reconciliation loop" architecture goes, you end up with something similar in most orchestration systems I've worked on, or you wish that you did. So overall I think that worked out well. Getting it right can be hard, but I think that's the nature of the beast.
Really interested to know about the challenges you faced in revisioning but couldn't find the exact thing, do you happen to know a source for understanding it more?
If you're using a tag like centos:8 that gets updated periodically, you already do not have reproducible builds. This just ensures you get updated packages as soon as possible
That depends on if your existence is political I suppose. Ask some of your LGBT colleagues, especially trans colleagues, if they feel like can just leave politics at the door.
I have worked with many LGBT colleagues who never bring up politics at work. This "existence is political" thing is just a bullshit phrase that the obnoxious people who can't go an hour without bringing that crap up use to justify it.
Correction: they never brought up politics to you. You don't know that they weren't political in their discussions with other colleagues. Perhaps it is worth considering why that might be the case.
People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it took me a long time to realize that there were conversations I was not being made a part of because I was not receptive to, or dismissive of, those conversations.
You've set up an unfalsifiable belief there. No matter what evidence is brought up to the contrary, you can just blow it off by claiming said people never reveal the truth to whoever is arguing with you. It's a fallacious way to shut other people down and that is, kind of, a little bit dickish.
I don't think that's the case here, though. The parent admitted that they fell into the exact same trap: assuming that certain conversations didn't go on because they weren't a part of those conversations, but later learning that wasn't the case, and it was their attitude that kept them out of those conversations.
It's of course not universally true that's the case for everyone, but I think it's worth thinking about. If your attitude is dismissive of someone's lived experience, it's not likely that they're going to go out of their way to include you in conversations about it; on the contrary, I'd expect them to explicitly exclude you in order to protect themselves.
>People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."
It is a bullshit phrase though. They don't want to bring it up because any skepticism is viewed as a direct attack on their ideology, and their ideology is the core of their existence/identity, so, calling out the illogic of their ideology is a political attack on their existence.
They want to TELL you, they don't want a discussion.
Kind of irrelevant as the implication of the parent is that it is impossible for the person not to bring up politics. But I have discussed politics extensively, outside of work, with a gay former co worker. Most of his political beliefs have nothing to do with being gay. The loud activist types represent only themselves and not the people they claim to.
How confident are you that the root cause of that political silence is a shared belief that politics shouldn't come up in the workplace rather than potential concern about the effects of openly discussing the issues that affect them?
Remember there are multiple supreme court cases just this year about trans people's right to both be trans and employed. That's part of what is meant by "existence being political".
In some cases perhaps it isn't, in others it is. Who are you to decide for them? Grow a little empathy and compassion, perhaps. No one is asking you to use particular pronouns in order to piss you off; they're doing it in order to feel comfortable in their own skin. It's petty, selfish, and inhuman to deny someone that.
What's next, if I'm not handing over $100/week then I'm damaging their existence? No. If you want me to do something to accommodate you then ask nicely. If you demand the right to put words in my mouth and control what I think, you can fuck off.
If your very existence is so wrapped up in political and gender/sexuality issues that you can't stand not talking about them at work, maybe you're not emotionally prepared to join the workforce.
There's a lot of hurdles involved with actually using the service -- many movies are explicitly unavailable, eligible screenings of available movies are very limited (only two showings per movie for the entire day this weekend for me, only between 4-7pm), and the main hassle of not being able to buy multiple seats at once or in advance.
As other people mentioned, it seems more likely that they're running a Xen fork or have some other mitigation. The redhat notes state that once the host is patched, the VMs need to be shut down for it to take effect:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0998.html
Oracle, which develops VirtualBox, said in an emailed statement that the company was "aware" of the problem, and fixed the code, adding that it will release a maintenance update soon.
"We will release a VirtualBox 4.3 maintenance release very soon. Apart from this, only a limited amount of users should be affected as the floppy device emulation is disabled for most of the standard virtual machine configurations," said software lead Frank Mehnert.
https://www.kut.org/austin/2020-03-18/judge-throws-out-city-...
Though granted this law was passed previously and wasn't a reaction to something Austin did a la TNC regulation