Yet another bait and switch plays out - build clout on the goodwill of open source and execute the plan at the opportune moment.
I may understand the decision but I sure as hell don't respect it - cashing out and prioritizing your family, a very human thing to do, at a glance it almost even seems noble.
Kubernetes for sure. When anyone asks for a good place to get started with understanding k8s - I tell them the docs should be all you need, then go get hands on.
Of course an average civilian wont be able to match the training and resources of a soldier. The idea is to raise the cost of engaging the civilian populace. No government wants to rule over piles of ruble and streets full of corpses.
Occupation is already expensive and essentially temporary. Look at the situation in Afghanistan, the US invades and occupies the country. As they begin to withdraw, territory is taken back by the Taliban and warlords, they simply bide their time and wait for an opportunity to return.
An armed populace changes the math around occupation and engaging in violence. Of course this also leads to other oppressive mechanisms like propaganda and manufacturing concent, but at least people aren't dying. Its a step in the right direction.
Absolutely agreed, and I think decentralization is a part of that. Instead of a single point of failure, spreading power between multiple groups reduces the potential damage and the incentive to corrupt a system.
Consider a treaty organization organized against a hypothetical enemy. If the adversary succeeds in corrupting and neutralizing one of the member states, that is significantly less damaging than if it were a centralized command that was corrupted.
It increases the cost dramatically to neutralize the treaty organization, and the threat to the system is easily and publicly recognized. As opposed to the slow and eventually catastrophic corruption of a centralized command.
This is a powerful argument for limited government and decentralization, requiring a simple premise that I think most people can agree with: That the protection and concealing of Jews and other groups under Nazi Germany was a just and desirable act.
Especially with the rhetoric today about creeping fascism, we should recognize that all authorities have the potential to become corrupt and oppressive. We should ensure proper checks against that and consider the potential consequences before implementing centralized services. Efficiency and cost effectiveness should not be the only consideration.
For instance, you might think that there are no potential downsides to a centralized welfare system. However what happens if those benefits are provided only to people of specific ideologies or races? What if it becomes contingent on giving up your biometric data or subject to drug testing as we have already seen in many areas of the US? Maybe we should consider the potential consequences of centralizing essential support structures and social safety nets.