While i agree with the principal statement, this also requires two things to work:

First: The scope should be defined properly, so people can contextualize what they are actually doing and reviewing.

Second: If the scope is subject to change, or parts of it are unclear, there needs to be room to consider, develop and try different variants

This is were good management is crucial, which includes giving breathing room at the start. What we tend to experience is the expectation of already good detailed results, that can be finalized but still work if things change significantly.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is grep, what are the do’s and dont’s of logging and why are people here talking about having an entire team maintain some pipeline just to handle logs?

Friendly reminder to every CEO that this could have been a situation where a disgruntled employee accidentally fucks up the off site backup too.

You can brute force most of higher education with memorization learning still. If you work twice as hard on your thesis for the six month or so you have to write it, you can make it seem like you understood most of it, even if you didn’t. If in doubt you can always try to make a literature research thesis and just write down what most authors talked about, even if you don’t understand what it is.

How do you know that what you consider “literal monkey could do it” is not something many other people struggle with?

As a kid i struggled a lot understanding, why people didn’t get the math we dealt with in high school, but i lacked behind in languages, not getting that you have to study for them and can’t just “get” them like with math.

it is not about it being hard. It simply creates effort to coordinate. And this effort needs to be considered. If you do things externally that means there is two PMs to pay, you need QMs on both sides, you need two legal/contract teams, you need to pay someone in procurement and someone in sales…

I agree with you that doing software inhouse when there is good options on the market is usually not a good idea. But for infrastructure i don’t see there to be as much of an efficiency loss. Especially as you very much need experts on how to set things up in a cloud environment and you better look carefully at how many resources you need to not overpay huge amounts.

If you are a small company then yes. But i would argue that for larger companies this doesn’t hold true. If you have 200 employees you’ll need an IT department either way. You need IT expertise either way. So having some people who know how to plan, implement and maintain physical hardware makes sense too.

There is a breaking point between economics of scale and the added efforts to coordinate between your company and the service provider plus paying that service providers overhead and profits.

And we should also consider the longevity of these infrastructures. Cities that built their subways in the 19th century are still running them today and are vastly superior in terms of transit abilities than car cities. The population densities of today are unimaginable without central sewers and water infrastructure. Having continent spanning electricity grids are gigantic achievements. All these have shaped our lives for decades and sometimes centuries already and they are set to do so for centuries to come.