I think there's something to be said for listening to your customers and community. But how much of the pushback was from the community? Certainly the developer who yanked their code. And from what I've read the internal developers too.
But I think having to fear crowds of probably less than completely informed people generally lacking nuance is not something to be lauded.
Even for those that do think halting border crossings is bad, the consequences of making ICE change to a different IT solution is likely that ICE's bureaucracy is hampered and people detained at the border take longer to process and thus result in more hardship.
If the objective is to gain some immediate press exposure for immigrants rights issues, it seems totally rational, and it appears to have achieved the goal.
If the objective is to improve conditions for immigrants in ICE/CBP custody in the near term, it's not clear it will help, and it could definitely have unintended negative consequences. For example, ERO agents under increased pressure due to IT systems going down may be less likely to offer DA on humanitarian grounds, if it's just easier and less paperwork to deport en masse. Maybe there's a strong rational argument to be made in favor, but average citizens don't have complete information or authority to investigate, so it really seems to boil down to more of a "gut instinct" decision.
If the objective is improvement in conditions for immigrants in the longer term, it might be rational if it's part of a persistent, steady application of pressure to reform ICE/CBP/ORR through a combination of protests, opening cases to trigger judicial oversight, and lobbying to achieve change through legislative processes. But it's unclear if this kind of boycott is particularly effective use of time/resources towards that goal.
nothing else works, people work with the tools they have at their disposition, and if companies don't have any morals when it comes to us (results driven approach no matter the consequences), why should we have any morals when dealing with companies? We're just playing at their own game, and getting good results, and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep on going as long as there are results.
Please give a counter example so we have evidence to back it up to the contrary.
1) The first time
2) Later than that
They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms.
“Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.
No, I disagree. What they have done is literally the minimum amount of effort.
The right thing to do is not to "continue to do what we're doing, offering a passive promise to not get more money."
1. Insufficiently.
2. Sufficiently.
The question is on this aspect.
Disclaimer: I bid on federal gov projects. The work is fairly fungible.
Where does it end? Maybe next year Chef decides they don't like DEA. Or ATF. Or something else.
It is not noble to deny work with the US Government. It's inefficient, bureaucratic, and deeply flawed. But it does a powerful lot of good.
Let them pick the contract up. Hopefully they charge more, take longer to implement, and are generally worse.
The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP.
We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.
It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today.
Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.
This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.
And abolishing a particular enforcement agency isn't abolishing law. Law around the border didn't disappear when INS was dismantled.
In fact, equating to two is common tactic of the "throwing children into cages is good, actually" crowd and most of the time it means the person is arguing in bad faith.
That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".
Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.
Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office.
Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?
'Abolish ICE' means that the agency as it currently exists needs to go. That doesn't mean we don't need at least some of the services they provide. It means they've become a harmful agency with a culture of abuse in many areas, not just with detention. Tear down the bad agency and start over with something new.
Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
Note that the investigatory group within ICE (Homeland Security Investigations) that is key to fighting human trafficking is almost entirely separate from the rest of ICE and has raised being part of ICE in the current environment, because of the backlashes the rest of ICEs practices have been producing, as inhibiting their work, because it reduces the willingness of people they need voluntary cooperation from to work with them, because “ICE”.
So, another reason to dismantle ICE.
The existing laws should be enforced, and they haven't been for decades. If the laws should be changed, then congress should work to change them. Allowing millions of people to evade the law because of feelings is not a solution.
Here is Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance policy".
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-ze...
This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy.
This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so.
edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.
do i get extra argument points for not liking ICE no matter who's sitting in the white house?
So the answer is no, I wasn't because I was unable to be outraged due to my lack of information.
If you don't want them held until trial, what should we do instead? They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.
Those are called death camps.
A concentration or internment camp is where you stick people who you don't trust, so you can keep an eye on them. Prisons are essentially a form of concentration camp, but the key distinction is that you have to be found guilty of something to end up in prison. It's probably more accurate to think of a concentration camp as a long term jail.
If you cross the border to request asylum, doesn't matter if walking or by using a star trek teleporter, you are committing no crime. They are breaking no laws.
Ahh, yes, the good ole "fight fire with fire," approach where you let your agents run rampant sexually abusing children, yet claim to be doing good.
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-se...
Yeah, what about that works? That work justify doing unethical things on the side?
I've never used Chef myself but I have noticed some message board posts lately claiming it's dead in the water and Ansible is the victor.
I've used Ansible since it came out, came straight from Puppet, so I'm biased. But I don't care what you use, as long as it works.
Chef is just no longer going to provide them with a paid support contract.
Those willing and able to do such support will find themselves with a very narrowed set of non-ICE clients.
There's a reason moral suasion and taboo are such effective social management engines.
I'm still at the "shell scripts are enough for everybody" camp, but Ansible is looking stable enough to use.
Ansible is too procedural. "do this if that otherwise something else. Then that. Then this other thing". This is very much prone to human error.
As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do (plus the overheads of every ssh connection that it creates every single time it generates a script). You might as well just write a bash script that does it all for you and execute it over ssh.
These examples seem as declarative as Chef and Puppet:
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/modules/file_module....
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/modules/template_mod...
On the same image it sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. This was happening on Amazon Linux 2, and basically once in a while yum database got corrupted. I'm suspecting there was a conflict between yum run by Amazon Linux 2 on boot, and ansible didn't respect locks acquired by yum?
2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer.
We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.
It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc).
But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you.
One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.
You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public.
The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.
Yes, some political overlap is inevitable. But flamewar is not, and holding that distinction is key to preventing this site from exploding itself.
It shows that the people in US, are influenced, to a large degree by selective outrage.
Selective outrage, is not just a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Selective outrage leads to selective justice, selective justice leads to unfair justice, and that leads to Orwellian state or dictatorship.
So showing the poison in selective outrage is totally appropriate.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wr...
If indeed it was inappropriately withheld in the past, I don't see any moral necessity to remain consistent, even if the flip-flopping turns out to be politically convenient.
For example, at least one of the infamous chain-link-cage detention centers was indeed built under Obama. That's worth knowing, and it's also worth knowing that, by law, children were to be kept there for no more than 72 hours before being transferred to better quarters.
The zero-tolerance policy that separated children from parents as the norm rather than an exception, that resulted in children being stuffed in those cages far beyond their intended capacity and left there for weeks, in unsanitary conditions, was all Trump. The deaths of an unprecedented seven children in one year in ICE custody, despite the total number of detainees nationwide being lower, was on Trump's watch.
Sources:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigran...
https://www.apnews.com/fdfbafe1f2784a759bc7c3a8e8ddbcab
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/why-are-migrant-children...
Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.
It's not about the numbers, it's all about not being an absolute disgrace while handling the topic.
However, the rule of law was still enforced. Obama concentrated on immigrants with a criminal record and those "picked up" at the border. Family separation was rare, and there was an advocacy and appeal process. USCIS judges were not silenced and neutered. It was far from a perfect system, but there was an attempt to make it compassionate.
This is why the numbers don't tell the whole story. G.W returned more than Obama, Clinton more than G.W., H.W. more than Clinton.
This is not a Obama vs Trump issue - this is a "Every US President in modern history" vs Trump issue. It is possible to enforce immigration laws compassionately. It is not hypocrisy to call this out.
This is why people are crying whataboutism. "Attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument," per Wikipedia.
Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.
I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.
What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat...
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust.
Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on.
Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it.
By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people.
But the second one is the guy who gets fired.
Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.)
Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date.
I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing?
Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans.
Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy.
Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common.
If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way.
If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well.
In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect.
That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware.
Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration.
edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.
They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.
See, when somebody throws something like this out, I can’t tell if they’re just uninformed or being intentionally misrepresentative. Family separation started under the Clinton administration when they found that large number of children were being assaulted in predominantly adult detention facilities, as well as finding that many of the migrant children were being accompanied by adults who were not their parents (that is, were being trafficked). I’m… not entirely sure what else you expect the border patrol to do other than, but I have to suspect it’s something like “don’t detain anybody, give them a court date and hope they show up for it” which was the policy until recently. They have a difficult job and a difficult mandate - trying to make them out to be the bad guys here just makes it harder, but isn’t going to help anybody.
Thousands of detained children are bad. Tens of millions dead from obesity is certainly worse than that right?
Also it’s quite possible to not work with lots of terrible companies that are doing great harm. Why stop with just a few. Surely chef will help the world by not doing business with all the bad companies of the world.
Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
Plastic, too. Coca-Cola is the largest source of plastic waste in the world.
I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?
Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost.
If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc.
Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.
This isn't about affecting change, it's about feeling good about ourselves.
Do we stop manufacturing cars because it helps support many unfavorable people/organizations?
If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them.
There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.
I'm somewhat certain your beef is with the idea of that specific organisation being considered bad, not with the reaction to that determination.
What's ICE and CBP?
Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.
This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality?
Thank you, Chef.
