Have these people done the math on how many engineers they can hire in other countries for USD$200k/yr? If you choose the timezone properly, they will even work overnight (your time) and have things ready in the morning for you.
I have a different opinion. :) DevOps is great feedback to the engineering team.
Too many alarms or alarms at unsocial hours? The engineering team should feel that pain.
Too hard to push? The engineering team should feel that pain.
Strange hard to diagnose alarms? Yep, the engineering team should feel that pain!
The feedback is very important to keeping the opex costs under control.
However, I think the author and I have different opinions on what DevOps is. DevOps isn't a full time role. It's what the engineer does to get their software into production.
In my career, DevOps was never a separate organization. It was a role assumed by the code owners. SRE (is it up, is the hardware working, is the network working?) was separate, and had different metrics.
Having separate teams makes it adversarial because both orgs end up reporting into separate hierarchies with independent goals.
Think about the metrics each team is measured on. Who resolves conflicts between them? How high up the org chart is it necessary to go to resolve the conflict? Can one team make different tradeoffs on code quality vs speed from another, or is it company-wide?
It’s not about just a manifesto, at the startup I worked for before getting into consulting 6 years ago - cloud + app dev - it was much more affective for the team who did the work, to create their own IAC based on a standard.
What’s the difference between a “DevOps team” in 2026 than “operations” in 2001?
The difference is what they do. Assisting other teams with creating fully automated build and test pipelines. Managing infrastructure using automated systems. Identifying issues in production systems that other teams should look at, down to a level of granularity that wasn’t really possible in 2001.
It very much was possible in 2001. In 2001 we automated updating and automating our 15 or so Windows job runners with Perl and the Win32:: module.
No large enterprise by 2001 was walking up to individual PCs and updating computers by walking around and sticking CDs/DVDs in each computer and they were definitely making sure our on prem SQL Server and later MySQL database wasn’t having issues using dashboards and alerts.
> The only folks who like devops are those that haven’t touched anything else, or are scared to move out of that molehill.
IDK I've been called everything from: SysOp, SysAdmin, Network Engineer, Systems Architect, Solutions Engineer, Sales Engineer, Platform Engineer, etc. Half of those at different companies are just "DevOps" depending on the org.
I think there are different definitions of DevOps.
I see a difference between a more definite operations team (SRE) vs an engineering team having responsibility for how their service works in production (DevOps).
DevOps is something that all teams should be doing - there's no point in writing code that spends it's life generating problems for customers or other teams, and having the problems arrive at the owners results in them being properly prioritized.
In smaller orgs, DevOps and SRE might be together, but it should still be a rotation instead of a fulltime role, and everyone should be doing it.
Engineers who don't do devops write code that looks like:
if (should_never_happen) {
log.error("owner=wombat@example.com it happened again");
}
Where the one who does do devops writes code that avoids the error condition entirely (usually possible), or decides what the code should do in that situation (not log).
It truly depends on the type of DevOps experience. I've avoided firefighting DevOps roles my career and I enjoy it. Having the space to step back and design intelligent dependent systems is satisfying.
Is the llm an expensive way to solve this? Would a more predictive model type be better? Then the llm summarizes the PR and the model predicts the likelihood of needing to update the doc?
Does using a llm help avoid the cost of training a more specific model?
I think it is very difficult to secure internet voting, someone can stand behind you and twist your arm or otherwise coerce you to vote for their candidate. Much harder to do when there are observers and witnesses at the polling booth.
>Internet voting needs to be anonymous and non demonstrable
Why? Honestly Internet voting would improve overall turnout, which seems more important. And we probably could accomplish anonymity with some clever cryptography.
"I give you $50 if you vote for me, you'll get it when I win the ballot"
If someone is willing to sell their vote in the first place, they have zero incentive to vote for another candidate. They only have to trust the buyer to follow up on his promise (which is required in any other scenario also).
You have to trust the voting place/ballot receiver in all cases. Like, after they take your name, you need to make sure that they aren't secretly associating your name with the ballot you are filling in. Likewise, if you vote by mail, you need to make sure that they aren't associating your identity on the envelope with the anonymous ballot inside the envelope.
That only solves the double-counting problem, and it's fundamentally impossible to solve the voter ID and voter manipulation problems with postal voting.
I'm not American, so I don't understand the older republican comment, but except in exceptionally adverse circumstances (astronauts on the ISS or submariners, etc) the military can provide ballot boxes to it's personnel.
Military and overseas voters vote in their home state elections, even federally (all elections are held by states, even for federal candidates). You would need to ensure that there is a ballot box representing each state that has an eligible voter at a given site, and then need to figure out logistics for getting thousands of sealed boxes back to the vote counters in each state within the allotted deadline. You would also need to solve the issue of maintaining vote anonymity at low volumes.
Or, you could have a central, federally run organization that takes responsibility for delivering sealed ballots to the respective states in a timely manner. Which is what we call voting by mail.
> Or, you could have a central, federally run organization that takes responsibility for delivering sealed ballots to the respective states in a timely manner. Which is what we call voting by mail.
No, postal voting is not the same as bringing ballot boxes to voters in exceptional circumstances and does not have the same set of tradeoffs. Postal voting in particular certainly does not solve the voter manipulation problem.
The fact that so many other countries manage to actually provide ballot boxes to all voters, even to voters in much more remote scenarios than US military service and countries with far fewer resources means that the US has no excuses.
They use mail in ballots. Older people who are seen as having trouble reaching the polls can also vote by mail in most states. American conservatives don't see these as problems because these mail-in votes are generally in their favor.
Speaking as someone who just sold a house in the Bay Area (Dec!), house prices here are very much "buying the payment".
The valuation of the property goes up and down directly with the interest rate.
The ROI of the house (we bought in 2016) was ~8% on the down payment over the past 10 years, excluding maintenance and interest charges. As an investment, property is not a very good one.
To get that 8% on the down payment, I spent 4% on the remainder. It really doesn't net positive after the mortgage interest (with a 20% down payment). It's about "forced savings" and having control over your environment.
As an aside, since people are stuck in houses (mortgage rates and prop-13), there is a definite lack of starter homes. Everyone adds the second bathroom, meaning there aren't any single bathroom homes to be found. That increases the market floor.
USD$200k is 3 engineers in New Zealand.
https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/new-zea...
reply