> The most confusing part of terraform for me is that terraform's view of the infrastructure is a singleton config file that is often stored in that very infrastructure.
That article is way overkill. One should just manually create the backend storage (S3 bucket or whatever you use). No reason to faff about with the steps in the article.
The reason to not create the bucket are because you want to ensure that you don’t have any click ops resources that you can’t track. If you manually create anything, that means it’s not in code and therefore the rest of the team doesn’t know where it lives, who created it, or when.
When you have a hammer… as the expression goes. It’s crazy how many times that even knowing this, I have to catch myself and step back. IaC is a contextually different way of thinking and it’s easy to get lost.
Interesting. It'd be stronger if you didn't make claims that just aren't true. For example:
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But you just started 3 weeks ago. So what you really meant is:
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I will have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But all in all inspiring. I am going to take a swing at my own executive assistant using opencode (with Claude under the hood).
"Why should the U.S. continue to have access to these bases, or receive support from allies’ naval assets, air forces, or even intelligence services, if it tries to take sovereign territory from a NATO member like Denmark? "
It doesn't seem to discuss Trump's "offer". Voting independence from Denmark is different from being given the option to join the United States.
As Chomsky would say "whenever there are multiple pictures, the darkest one tends to be closer to the truth". What if natural resources would be more expensive (for both US and EU) to buy if Greenland were independent, than if it were still half-colony of Denmark. Then EU and US would have a common interest in manipulating in the same direction the referendum you referenced (for independence). Both US and EU might have cheaper access to natural resources if the population votes no for independence. Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, to scare the population to stay subjugated (and enjoy imaginary protection from EU against imaginary threat from US).
his comment was not specific to Western nations, it would apply equally well to asian, african, south american, russian,northern, southern, ... nations, but you are right, he wouldn't treat Western nations with an exception, and that always makes the relevant population feel addressed, and this subjectively feels different, or being picked on with precision, but its just when a population feels addressed.
reply