Eh. Sure, I slightly mis-read the article, it happens.
Just preface my block of text with a "tangentially, when it comes to 'workloads' ... [the rest of the block of text]", and now you have a generic comment, not about the article, but about something related.
When people skim through something in a sloppy way and then focus on writing a rant about it I just don't take their view seriously. If people can't be bothered to carefully digest information, I just assume that they don't know what they are talking about. You may be right or wrong, but I would just choose to listen to people who did their homework instead.
Seeing as these are the only two comments you've made on this thread, it seems like you're not ignoring what you claim should be ignored and taking all this a bit too seriously.
Whether it makes sense to add the stage name to a resource name is a decision that is informed by a wider context that includes hosting environment, deployment pattern and configuration approach. It can make sense in some situations and can be a bad idea in other situations.
