IBM Hat doesn't need it, Google probably thinks they're too smart for it, Amazon doesn't pay for open source... hello Microsoft. Docker Hub + Github = Microsoft Hub?
A Microsoft acquisition made so much sense around 2015 from talent and developer mindshare perspective, not so much anymore.
All of Docker’s tech is commodity at this point. Their enterprise offerings still address a niche market, but Kubernetes ecosystem has outgrown it with companies like Rancher.
Docker Hub is nice to have public registry, but everyone else, including Microsoft’s GitHub has already implemented the docker-registry protocol. Github can now serve docker images.
I hate that this is the world we've come to, but I think an acquisition by Microsoft would be the best outcome.
Or maybe Oracle could so diabolically implode Docker like a Las Vegas hotel, that everyone will move to something with a much better security model and stop with the containers in VMs nonsense.
No one will move to something else, because they already have. Everyone who's running containers in production is either already using Kubernetes with CRI-O or planning to move to it. The Docker client is used only for building and testing images, and there are easy replacements for that as well. That's Docker's problem in the first place.
Why? It's super handy and the general idea has been well proven in FreeBSD and Solaris. It's very convenient to encapsulate all of you dependencies into an environment segregated from the rest of the system, and chroot just isn't complete enough.
I'm utterly tired of the way tech executives are dressing nowadays; this audience clearly doesn't believe it matters in the slightest, but I'm challenging anyone to come up with some inkling of why it actually might --
Let me give you an argument from a functionalist perspective, as a designer -- If you're never going to wear a necktie, why bother ever wearing a collared shirt?
The collar is in place to hold the tie, you don't need a tie, you don't need a collar, so don't wear one
This argument is somewhat metaphysical but it strikes at the core of the tech industry as it stands now -- the question of being overdressed vs underdressed, of fitting in vs standing out
It seems that the safe and generally accepted path is 'underdressed' and 'fitting in' and I'm telling you this is causing the entire industry to optimize for false signals which leads to social issues and frankly leaves tons of money on the table for ordinary people who are struggling to find proper career prospects
Pragmatic answer: because it crosses some threshold where it's deemed I'm dressed appropriately at work and a normal shirt wouldn't.
> The collar is in place to hold the tie, you don't need a tie, you don't need a collar, so don't wear one
A collar can also be popped to provide extra shade to the neck, it has it's own functionality independent of the tie. I'm not sure if these execs are getting enough sun that it matters, but I certainly do.
You might believe that questions of this nature don't belong on HN, but they certainly do when viewed from the perspective of semaphores -- human beings are going to communicate on all possible wavelengths and that includes the visual
The audience of this video is processing visual information and then audio, in that order, if you want your message to have some kind of impact you need to provide more visual cues than an unbuttoned neckline
Are you referring to Jack Wolfskin? Yes it's not something that might be consciously noticed but 100% it's picked up by the subconscious and in post-processing this CEO is going to be a blur with all the other tech execs who flash by one's screen on any given day
It's simply that tech professionals who ought to know a thing or two about data science, statistics, human psychology, color theory etc would notice how naively they've optimized for a very narrow band when it comes to personal and professional branding
Like I mean most all tech execs dress as some variation of Marc Benioff of Salesforce .. unbuttoned shirt, jacket, looking like they just came out of the shower
My question is how many are doing that because they are simply copying each other and trying to signal that they are indeed tech execs, how many are simply clueless and how many just don't care
Why isn't there a one except say Masayoshi Son and Mark Zuckerberg who dresses all the way up every now and then? Is it because they care what other people think -- and using the same argument, wouldn't there be a case for over dressing if you care about what people think?
This should be old hat to professionals who specialize in statistics and human behaviour and who understand concepts like the central limit theory, branding and other advanced topics but to a man they all seem to prefer looking like they just got off a private jet and didn't have time to get dressed on the way to the conference and it's getting tired and boring
It seems they want to over-optimize for being 'casual and approachable' and never for being 'authoritative and distant' and then their companies tank and they move onto other companies -- leaving the ordinary people to scrounge for new career prospects in an increasingly cynical job market
And furthermore, of course you can justify 'they're just people' but by virtue of their position, they are to be held apart and to a higher standard than ordinary people -- they are in a position of authority and leadership! As such, constantly over optimizing for 'how approachable' they are has to come at a cost? And the cost is the ability to actually execute!
I know it's crazy, but there are psychological, sociological, anthropological and other reasons, all of them perhaps anecdotal or circumstantial and it takes a mental leap in order to get the point -- that's actually a good thing, that it's not immediately apparent doesn't make it meaningless, it is something that is subtle and very easy to overlook. I'm arguing that subtlety is a vital characteristic of the mathematician and software professional and any mathematician worth his salt ought to be able to get an inkling of how the nexus and mathematics and human psychology might work?
Another thing is that it's subtle you may not begin to notice it for weeks or years, but it's there, just because the rational mind doesn't see it doesn't mean other layers of the mind don't.. apparently the mind has all sorts of filters maybe when those filters are activated the very fact of their activation provides some other sort of feedback? It's a pretty complex machine
I'll give you a few ideas -- mind you this is only one particular spin on the idea, there are many others that point to 'wear the damned tie'
Network effects
As an executive, you're setting a tone on what's good enough and what's expected within the organization. Ostensibly the organization's eyes are on you and people are consciously and subconsciously judging you on your habits (dress being a rather big one; whether you like it or not, people will be reading into the way you dress and can glean a lot about your habits based on the way you dress, even in the modern day when everyone claims to ignore these sorts of cues, people aren't always ignoring these types of cues)
Now as an executive, if every single day of the year you're skipping the tie, you're sending a very clear message that skipping the tie is not only fine, it's practically mandated and I'm telling you that's a very slippery slope for an organization --
One thing people have gotten distorted from traditional values is the idea that leaders are meant to be just that much better than their people, i.e. they must try that much more because a true leader expects more of themselves before they begin expecting more of others it's simple courtesy -- I recall someone perhaps George Washington once said that a leader must be 15% earlier, 15% better prepared and 15% better dressed (the meaning of `dress` here being dress(3): `treated or prepared` and it's no coincidence that dress(4) has the meaning of `drawing up troops to proper alignment` -- the corporate structure mirrors the military but only when it's convenient I guess?)
However in the modern era, it's taken backwards: people must be just that much worse than their superiors.. so it devolves as it trickles down.. people see the CEO skipping the tie, it immediately means they would be out of line to wear one -- can you see the network effects that come into play? the VP layer will begin skipping the collar shirt even, you'll begin seeing sweater vests and other paraphernalia
By the time it trickles down to the engineering layers the people will practically be disrobed because management is walking around in blue jeans and sneakers, it must be alright to come in with the odd hole in your pants, right? or maybe your favourite punk band T-shirt fifty days out of the year? you're not customer facing after all...
And so morale takes a huge hit it's no secret people are being treated like slaves in the bull pens (a conversation for another day) and I'm of the opinion it all starts by how leadership signals 'good enough'
--
I'll go one step further
Based on how people dress, I can also tell you how they pack when they travel. No chance in hell a guy who never wears a tie would even pack a tie for a conference, right?
Well what if a big investment opportunity with Softbank or some other unicorn maker came up during that conference? The gregarious ...
Another cue I want to offer you is `The Donation Game` which is a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma[1] --
Treating a business dealing as a game perhaps it could be viewed as a variation of the Prisoner's dilemma or Donation game -- i.e. the decision to cooperate or not based on the incentives to do so or not
So depending on whether you're playing the Prisoner's Dilemma or the Donation game, a tie could be an important signal your intention and can be used to affect the outcome --
Perhaps in "Prisoner" economics the tie indicates the intention to act in one's own greedy self interest but in "Donation" economics it may connote the understanding that one's self interest is also the common self interest?
32 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 77.1 ms ] threadOr Oracle??
All of Docker’s tech is commodity at this point. Their enterprise offerings still address a niche market, but Kubernetes ecosystem has outgrown it with companies like Rancher.
Docker Hub is nice to have public registry, but everyone else, including Microsoft’s GitHub has already implemented the docker-registry protocol. Github can now serve docker images.
Or maybe Oracle could so diabolically implode Docker like a Las Vegas hotel, that everyone will move to something with a much better security model and stop with the containers in VMs nonsense.
Yes, everyone except those on the biggest cloud vendor using its containerized application platform [1].
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/ecs/
The collar is in place to hold the tie, you don't need a tie, you don't need a collar, so don't wear one
It seems that the safe and generally accepted path is 'underdressed' and 'fitting in' and I'm telling you this is causing the entire industry to optimize for false signals which leads to social issues and frankly leaves tons of money on the table for ordinary people who are struggling to find proper career prospects
> The collar is in place to hold the tie, you don't need a tie, you don't need a collar, so don't wear one
A collar can also be popped to provide extra shade to the neck, it has it's own functionality independent of the tie. I'm not sure if these execs are getting enough sun that it matters, but I certainly do.
The audience of this video is processing visual information and then audio, in that order, if you want your message to have some kind of impact you need to provide more visual cues than an unbuttoned neckline
It's simply that tech professionals who ought to know a thing or two about data science, statistics, human psychology, color theory etc would notice how naively they've optimized for a very narrow band when it comes to personal and professional branding
My question is how many are doing that because they are simply copying each other and trying to signal that they are indeed tech execs, how many are simply clueless and how many just don't care
Why isn't there a one except say Masayoshi Son and Mark Zuckerberg who dresses all the way up every now and then? Is it because they care what other people think -- and using the same argument, wouldn't there be a case for over dressing if you care about what people think?
This should be old hat to professionals who specialize in statistics and human behaviour and who understand concepts like the central limit theory, branding and other advanced topics but to a man they all seem to prefer looking like they just got off a private jet and didn't have time to get dressed on the way to the conference and it's getting tired and boring
It seems they want to over-optimize for being 'casual and approachable' and never for being 'authoritative and distant' and then their companies tank and they move onto other companies -- leaving the ordinary people to scrounge for new career prospects in an increasingly cynical job market
Another thing is that it's subtle you may not begin to notice it for weeks or years, but it's there, just because the rational mind doesn't see it doesn't mean other layers of the mind don't.. apparently the mind has all sorts of filters maybe when those filters are activated the very fact of their activation provides some other sort of feedback? It's a pretty complex machine
I'll give you a few ideas -- mind you this is only one particular spin on the idea, there are many others that point to 'wear the damned tie'
Network effects
As an executive, you're setting a tone on what's good enough and what's expected within the organization. Ostensibly the organization's eyes are on you and people are consciously and subconsciously judging you on your habits (dress being a rather big one; whether you like it or not, people will be reading into the way you dress and can glean a lot about your habits based on the way you dress, even in the modern day when everyone claims to ignore these sorts of cues, people aren't always ignoring these types of cues)
Now as an executive, if every single day of the year you're skipping the tie, you're sending a very clear message that skipping the tie is not only fine, it's practically mandated and I'm telling you that's a very slippery slope for an organization --
One thing people have gotten distorted from traditional values is the idea that leaders are meant to be just that much better than their people, i.e. they must try that much more because a true leader expects more of themselves before they begin expecting more of others it's simple courtesy -- I recall someone perhaps George Washington once said that a leader must be 15% earlier, 15% better prepared and 15% better dressed (the meaning of `dress` here being dress(3): `treated or prepared` and it's no coincidence that dress(4) has the meaning of `drawing up troops to proper alignment` -- the corporate structure mirrors the military but only when it's convenient I guess?)
However in the modern era, it's taken backwards: people must be just that much worse than their superiors.. so it devolves as it trickles down.. people see the CEO skipping the tie, it immediately means they would be out of line to wear one -- can you see the network effects that come into play? the VP layer will begin skipping the collar shirt even, you'll begin seeing sweater vests and other paraphernalia
By the time it trickles down to the engineering layers the people will practically be disrobed because management is walking around in blue jeans and sneakers, it must be alright to come in with the odd hole in your pants, right? or maybe your favourite punk band T-shirt fifty days out of the year? you're not customer facing after all...
And so morale takes a huge hit it's no secret people are being treated like slaves in the bull pens (a conversation for another day) and I'm of the opinion it all starts by how leadership signals 'good enough'
--
I'll go one step further
Based on how people dress, I can also tell you how they pack when they travel. No chance in hell a guy who never wears a tie would even pack a tie for a conference, right?
Well what if a big investment opportunity with Softbank or some other unicorn maker came up during that conference? The gregarious ...
Treating a business dealing as a game perhaps it could be viewed as a variation of the Prisoner's dilemma or Donation game -- i.e. the decision to cooperate or not based on the incentives to do so or not
So depending on whether you're playing the Prisoner's Dilemma or the Donation game, a tie could be an important signal your intention and can be used to affect the outcome --
Perhaps in "Prisoner" economics the tie indicates the intention to act in one's own greedy self interest but in "Donation" economics it may connote the understanding that one's self interest is also the common self interest?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Special_c...