Yes, but those things bring more value than simple green grass. I can eat the chickens and their eggs. I can eat veggies from the garden. I can’t eat St Augustine grass because I’m not a goat.
Though a "condo" is technically a legal structure, in Canada in generally refers to a self-owned 'apartment' with-in a tower of some height. Colloquially 'townhouses' are house-looking structures in a common development.
Fully- or semi-detached generally means a freehold property without any links to any kind of other legal entity (besides the municipality). 'Semi' means that there is a shared wall between two structures, but they are legally independent lots.
For a low naintenance lawn you can plant clover or turf grass or a mix of grass with clover, Dutch Clover and chamomile. You get a more diverse lawn which attracts bees. If you have a lot of shade, moss is also a good alternative.
People I know in Manhattan are still paying their cleaners even though there’s no more cleaning. These are fewer and fewer as folks permanently decamp from the city.
Your comment echoes my experience... in New York City. I’m white too, and I’d gotten pulled over more times in NYC than anywhere else. There’s always something: you drove over the yellow line for a second; your hands weren’t on 10 and 2; we may have seen a cell phone at your ear; why does your car have a big dent? The NYPD is one huge pain in the ass.
I live in Florida now; sheriff’s deputies in my county are very chill. They wave and say hello, and they don’t care why there’s something weird in the back of my truck.
NYPD is extremely corrupt. I know someone who became an officer there and quit and moved to long island due to the pressure for corruption/hazing/etc.
Another friend of mine is a retired NYPD lieutenant and I forgot exactly what happened but he told me a story of someone claiming to be innocent and his response was "How do you think I became lieutenant?"
Huh, this is strange. My experience has been the opposoite When did you live in NYC? I'm not white (I'm of Indian / South Asian ancestry.) I lived in NYC for years, and even owned and drove my own car in NYC for a few years (2017, 2018, and 2019). There were many times that I'd been speeding, and I've never been pulled over for speeding (not even once) inside of NYC. I've only been pulled over by NYPD once, and that one time was not without reason (I had made a right turn where right turn were not allowed). That one time they were pretty professional.
There was even a time when I was distracted, and drove partially through a red light (in Queens), and the car coming from the other side was a NYPD cruiser. If I hadn't braked, I would have hit them. The officers inside the NYPD cruiser glared at me (with a very angry face), and I braked, and then reversed back to behind the red light. But they went on their way (and didn't give me a ticket or anything). I'm not sure why my experience has been so different. Maybe the NYPD changed after wave of BLM/etc. protests that started in 2014?
Lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack. Presence of evidence is evidence of presence.
That is to say just because it didn’t happen to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen - and because it happened to other people, we know it does happen in spite of it never having happened to you.
Florida is an amazing state, I wish I lived there. DeSantis has successfully banned local governments from future coronavirus restrictions including lockdowns/shutdowns.
There is 100% chance I will lose a substantial amount of money due to a lockdown, there is %99+ chance I will survive the virus. Of course this risk profile isn't for everyone but that's the beauty of personal liberty: the freedom to make the choice that's right for you.
> Of course this risk profile isn't for everyone but that's the beauty of personal liberty: the freedom to make the choice that's right for you.
But your personal choice does determine if you put the lives of not only everyone around you but also your entire community at risk. Does that count for anything?
Personal protection is just that: personal. If masks are not adequate to protect you from others who may not be following best practices then I think the PPE standards need to be adjusted. You cannot trust/expect everyone to adhere to them perfectly.
I live in an area that isn't Florida but does not adhere to quarantine guidelines. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has been sick. We wash our hands and take basic precautions and anecdotally that has been sufficient.
Personal disclaimer: I am anti lockdown. This is causing substantial damage to our economy and I depend on my community having the financial means to purchase my services and products.
I work in construction and the majority of the jobsites do not wear masks. We are all ok. If you are feeling sick then don't be an asshole and show up to work. Everyone I know has followed this basic guideline. Of course you will say you can have it and be asymptomatic etc and we could discuss this ad nauseum but I will just tell you I am not open to changing my mind. I have an absolutism mentality on this position. I don't think we know enough about the virus to make these types of detrimental restrictions. For example we now know putting someone on a ventilator for an extended period of time typically does more harm than good.
> Personal protection is just that: personal. If masks are not adequate to protect you from others who may not be following best practices then I think the PPE standards need to be adjusted.
That's not the point of using a mask at all. It never was, to begin with.
Masks are intended to limit or eliminate the chance you infect people around you. Sure, they also help you not breed in particles, but masks are quite literally a filter you place over your mouth and nose to stop the droplets you're emitting from spreading around.
The rationale is that covid carriers can spread the disease for over a week without even suspecting they have it. They spread the disease by spraying infected droplets through their airways. Thus, the right thing to do is to be on the safe side and ensure we cannot contribute to spread the disease.
If the whole community acts responsibly and takes basic measures to stop the disease from spreading, the disease stops spreading and the epidemic is reigned in.
You wear a mask to protect the community and ensure everyone around you stays safe. You're intentionally putting everyone around you and everyone you contact with at risk if you not only refuse to take basic precautions such as wearing a mask but also engage with people who also refuse to do so.
I’m an immigrant, and I’ll never stand for any kind of reparations for descendants of former slaves. Invariably this will come out of tax dollars to which I’m contributing by way of income tax. Why should I be charged for wrongs - however horrible - in which neither myself nor my ancestors were involved? When there was still slavery in America, my people were enslaving members of their own ethnic group back in the old country. Forgive me for not wanting any part of this current dispute.
And to those who will certainly tell me that I’ve benefitted from the modern spoils of slavery: I beg to differ. My first decade in the US was all about climbing out of the pit of “you’re not white enough for us because you didn’t go to a top school”. That shit still haunts me to this day.
> Invariably this will come out of tax dollars to which I’m contributing by way of income tax.
This is no different than paying taxes for any number of other social programs, however its a singularly bad place to draw the line.
> Why should I be charged for wrongs - however horrible - in which neither myself nor my ancestors were involved?
Because you aren't being charged. The government that legalized and regulated slavery is being charged. This government is (one of) the legal institutions that permitted slavery and benefitted from slavery that still exists. Therefore they are responsible for satisfying legal claims that are still pending.
> When there was still slavery in America, my people were enslaving members of their own ethnic group back in the old country. Forgive me for not wanting any part of this current dispute.
If you don't want any part of it then you are free to remain neutral in discussions of this issue. By arguing against reparations you are participating in the dispute.
> And to those who will certainly tell me that I’ve benefitted from the modern spoils of slavery: I beg to differ. My first decade in the US was all about climbing out of the pit of “you’re not white enough for us because you didn’t go to a top school”.
That doesn't challenge the assertion that you benefitted from the accumulated capital that was in part built on the forced labor of slaves.
> That shit still haunts me to this day.
I'm truly sorry for your traumatic experience.
p.s. I've upvoted this comment because while I disagree with the substance, it raises important arguments that need to be responded to and the comment itself contributes to the discussion. I'd like to ask down voters to consider why they feel this comment needs to be suppressed because I disagree with their opinion on the value of the comment and its contribution to the discussion.
I’m also an immigrant, and I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. It’s not about “benefitting from the spoils of slavery.” It’s about having to pay taxes to fund any other kind of obligations that existed before you came here. The US still has outstanding bonds from the first bond issue 1790. It’s still paying pensions from the Spanish American war. If you move to Chicago, you’ll have to pay off pensions for people who retired decades before you moved there.
> My first decade in the US was all about climbing out of the pit of “you’re not white enough for us because you didn’t go to a top school”.
I likely do not understand what you mean here, because a casual reading of this seems ridiculous. Most white people do not go to top schools either.
On the flip side, if one were to list factors that play a role in becoming decently successful, going to a top school is fairly low on that list (as in most successful people didn't go to one either).
I'm probably not interpreting the comment as you intended, though.
> I’m an immigrant, and I’ll never stand for any kind of reparations for descendants of former slaves. Invariably this will come out of tax dollars to which I’m contributing by way of income tax. Why should I be charged for wrongs - however horrible - in which neither myself nor my ancestors were involved?
Why should you be a contributor to the wrongs of this country's past? Simple, because you are a member/resident of this country, and this country benefits from them. I could be wrong, but I don't see any complaints about paying of any war debt accrued by the US from entering WW II or the Vietnam war, but you also pay towards that. It's accepted that current us citizens who benefit from the previous actions of the country, also have responsiblity for the previous decisions of the country.
An enormous part of the reason why this country is so financially successful is because of slavery and stealing wages for so long. That's why the US was an agricultural powerhouse, that's why the north industrialized so quickly, that's why we became a major economic power in the 20th century.
And even you yourself admit you see all of those benefits, and reap them. You came to this country presumably for those exact reasons. You're as you say an immigrant, and the reason you chose to come here, and not stay where you were was because of exactly the benefits this country accrued by leaning heavily on slavery during it's critical period.
The fact you had negative experiences while here (and I'm sorry you did), doesn't invalidate or outweigh the fact that you came here to benefit from America's benefits, and that you have benefited from them.
American education does an incredibly poor job of covering the financial windfall of slaver in the US. And (extremely reasonably) people from other countries who move here never learned about it back home. To give some perspective, the value of "human capital" held as chattel slaves, was more valuable than all industrial and transportation capital in the entire country.[1] That's how much value was present. I'd highly recommend anyone who hasn't really read about slavery to really read about it. Unfortunately there was an intentional concerted effort in the middle of last century to downplay the scope and impact of slavery in the US and a lot of those vestiges are present because it was very successful.
There is way more here than the simplistic arguments that are made online in chat forums. I'd recommend looking into it. While not ideal, this essay is a decent place to start if you're curious. [2]
Slavery was not in the least a contribution to "financial success". It was very much a dysfunctional and failing system, for reasons that were made clear even by Adam Smith, who wrote in 1776 - and that are agreed upon by modern economists. What it did was create a huge unfair advantage for the few who could afford to "own" someone who had been enslaved - but that never translated to region-wide progress. Indeed, the part of the U.S. where slavery was widespread is still the most unequal today and the one with the most uninclusive, regressive, extractive culture and institutions (despite a very real change in outlook during the 1980s), and that's no coincidence.
'Slavery made economic sense' is a narrative that, until recently, you would only have heard from the likes of "Black-Israelite" conspiracy peddlers. Let's not give credence to such unscientific and misleading claims.
> Slavery was not in the least a contribution to "financial success"... What it did was create a huge unfair advantage for the few who could afford to "own" someone who had been enslaved
I think you have been given a very skewed view of the role that slavery played in our country's economic past. There have been long efforts to downplay the role of slavery, and there still are. Cotton was the US's #1 export from ~1800 through 1930 due to slavery, and then continuing into the extremely exploitive sharecropping. That's the core period our country developed - and the single export that brought in the most capital into this country. That continuous inflow of capital is also what made New York City the financial powerhouse it became. [1]
Slavery wasn't a just for the few. One of the number one ways that people mislead with slavery is by trying to show the percentage of the slaves divided by the total population in 1860. That's extremely misleading, as individuals didn't own slaves, families did. The same way measuring what percentage of families own their home is accurate, not individuals that own the home, as only one in the family typically owns the home.
There were 15 slave states in 1860. Of the top 10 states, in all of them at least 25% of families owned slaves. With the top two states South Carolina and Mississippi topping out at 46% and 49% of families. Almost half the families owned slaves. And that's ignoring everyone else in the south who didn't own slaves, but participated in the slave trade - and those who rented slaves for labor but didn't technically "own them". [2]
On top of that of the top 5 states owning slaves, enslaved people ranged from over 40% of the population in Georgia, to almost
60% of the entire population of the state of South Carolina. [3]
Slavery and the white supremacy views it was built on, were an absolutely core part of the first part of this country's existence - culturally, economically, politically. Slavery wasn't a niche occurrence only for the elite - and especially so for the white South. It was disgusting, it was violent, it was immoral and it was everywhere. It didn't play a minimal role. The idea that a few wealthy elite slave owners "tricked" the rest of the southern population
to go to war for them is a farce. The entire south gathered up to go to war because white supremacy was the culture of their land.
It's taken this country a long time to try to undo that work - and we still haven't finished...
But to downplay Slavery is to also downplay what was taken from Black Americans, and how much that theft built this early country.
> Cotton was the US's #1 export from ~1800 through 1930 due to slavery
Wait, you're making a very different claim than what I was talking about. I agree that it probably made some sense to have some kind of plantation economy in the South, and that, as a matter of fact the plantations the South did have were based on enslaved labor. And for sure, there are interesting debates to have about the unacknowledged contribution that's inherent in that. But slavery was never a necessary part of that successful economy; indeed, it's quite physically possible to have plantations that employ free laborers as opposed to relying on slaves!
I don't think that interpretation of history is quite so strong, for a few reasons. While buying enough slaves to run a plantation was extremely expensive - buying a single slave to have for household purposes was not unobtainable or rare at all. Since slave status was inherited and the "one-drop" rule ensured it tended to get inherited, it was extremely common for less-financially well-off slave owners to simply rape an enslaved woman (multiple times over her lifetime) and then to either sell his mixed children, or commonly - to gift them as slaves to his white children when they come of age. This is a hugely valuable financial advantage for those who inherit a slave, and having a slave made them more valuable as a spouse as well, meaning they could increase their wealth more by marrying better than they could have without a slave. Nearly every white person from the south, has a family member who owned a slave - even if you would never guess by their economic status today. I'm from the south myself, and even though my great-grandparents were dirt poor in the mountains, I don't doubt someone somewhere back in time owned a slave. It really was just so common that the probability is a near certainty.
Also, when slavery was at it's height, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia were far more prosperous regions than they eventually became post-civil war. The south in general was more financially well-off during the time of slavery than it has been since - and you can read primary sources from the time and region saying as much. I can point you towards primary sources from elected officials of the time period saying as much - that they knew slavery was evil, but they also knew it was the source of economic and social stability that they enjoyed. The institution of slavery itself did not directly lead to economic fall of the southern states - rather it was the tensions from having a nation with both slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, and the south's extremely strong incentive to protect their advantageous status even at the cost of war.
When the war did happen, the civil-war-related destruction that happened in the south (ie, the burning of Atlanta), had an equally dramatic impact and the outcome that we see today. Decades of slavery were certainly impactful, but so were the effects of the civil war, reconstruction, the great migration, and later cycles of industrialization, which tended to reach the south last due to network effects (there was no impetus to branch out from the skilled workers available up north... until unions took hold at least). All of those effects are more recent, and more relevant to the economic conditions today.
Additionally, the cultural regressiveness you speak of is closely tied to the Great Awakening and the particularly conservative religious denominations that became regionally dominant - and notably, these denominations had, and still have strong pull on southern white and black communities alike. The south actually had a reputation for being quite a fun and "sinful" place before that. My own state, NC, founded the first public university in the world (UNC Chapel Hill) - a paradoxically very progressive institution - despite being founded by slavers during a period of widespread slavery.
So understanding inequality and culture that exists in South, both now and then, and today is a complex thing. I would strongly caution trying to reduce it down that completely.
> That is like saying "the sick made this hospital uninviting".
But the sick do make a hospital uninviting! Think of all those heart attack patients who opted not to visit their local emergency department. Heart attacks are still happening regardless of how many additional patients are at the hospital due to infection.
The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. It’s that simple.
The whole “traditional marriage” mindset stems from religion. When forced upon others by law it’s just another way to limit individual freedoms. It’s disgusting and has to stop.
Sorry, now you're telling me what I'm allowed to fear? Is this still about freedom? It just seems like you're doubling down on a bad idea. People have a right to not be made afraid - but people don't have a right to be afraid except if it's a valid fear?
I much prefer my position that freedom and fear do not intersect.
He said "concerned" as in "it is none of your concern" because it shouldn't effect you. You are still free to fear gay marriage or spiders or clowns but your fear shouldn't dictate public policy or impinge on anyone else's freedom.
I like your idea that freedom and emotion are orthogonal. A lot of the problem we're having with "culture wars" right now is the blurring of the line between the two. I think separating the two ideas might help solve a lot of issues from "cancel culture" to "war on Christmas" and "safe spaces" and maybe even gun control. You can hate/fear/boycott a comedian who offends you but you aren't owed their head on a platter. It's OK to think that your being a Christian/Vegan/Cosplayer is sacred but you shouldn't expect everyone to cater to your belief.
"The only marriage you have the right to be concerned about is your own, if any."
=> "You do not have the right to fear the decline of traditional marriage." Particularly relevant if you think, for instance, the gay agenda would be corrosive to your own marriage, due to what I am told is widespread sublimated homosexuality, or the dating life of your children, due to similar reasons. Regardless, I believe telling people that their fear is invalid doesn't tend to be a crowd-pleaser. Instead, I take the more extreme but also I think more defensibly liberal position that their fear is irrelevant, because reducing fear is not a legitimate policy goal of a well-functioning state. A state should reduce the referent of a fear, if such a referent exists.
A state should not engage in sociology - it should not strive to shape the emotions of its citizenry. Such an endeavour is corrosive to the control mechanism of democratic feedback, because it decouples citizens' reaction from reality.
"Any proxy measure that becomes a policy target ceases to be a good proxy measure."
I totally agree that personal concerns/fears/moral compasses should not justify restrictions for the others. Sadly I can't find a single society that hasn't compromised on this painfully reasonable approach at the alter of what's popular.
Things related to substances, sex acts, pornography, religion, obscenity, gambling, even vaping seem to be common victims nowadays.
And when there is some progress in something, it seems that it's not for the right reason (that simply there is no rational basis to restrict some freedom for some arbitrary/subjective concept of "the greater good"), but for the reason that the people that are negatively affected by it became numerous and loud enough to not ignore.
Religion is basically just the public policy of 1000+yr ago. If you look at the economics and societal mechanics of subsistence farming societies it's pretty clear why homosexual marriage throws a wrench into all the various mechanisms (inheritance, training the next generation in the skills they will need) that keep things moving from generation to generation and increases risk by reducing the future labor supply (kids). Disallowing homosexuality screws ~10% of the population but over the course of multiple generations and with the slim margins that agrarian societies exist on forcing that 10% of the population to find a heterosexual partner and raise a family and act like everyone else may very well be enough of a boost to keep your community intact when the next 50yr drought hits.
Forcing Steve and Stan to find wives and raise kids is just the 50AD version of "your rights end where the community's ability to survive the next famine begins". Remember, there was a lot more suffering back then so people not being able to marry and live with who you want mostly didn't make the short list of problems these people had.
Of course, over the past 1000yrs things changed. Famine mostly isn't an issue. Modern families don't need to pump out a bunch of kids to ensure they will have enough labor to work the fields when half of them die before age 5. We have ubiquitous written communication so that Steve and Stan can write their wills and their families won't feud over who gets the farm when they both meet an untimely end in an ox drawn cart accident.
So while disallowing homosexual marriage seems nonsensical to us now they were actually optimizing for something 1000yr ago when the legacy code was written (written by people with information that mostly only consisted of what could be observed in a human lifetime no less).
Traditional marriage as in "pegs minus holes = 0" doesn't really make sense as a sticking point in the modern world. "Traditional marriage" as in "for life unless something exceptional happens" is still accepted as the gold standard for child rearing (or all the public health experts and sociologists are wrong). So we definitely shouldn't trivialize marriage and unless something changes we should probably continue to have public policy carrots/sticks that keep child rearing parents together.
>Forcing Steve and Stan to find wives and raise kids is just the 50AD version of "your rights end where the community's ability to survive the next famine begins". Remember, there was a lot more suffering back then so people not being able to marry and live with who you want mostly didn't make the short list of problems these people had.
This seems to be a non-sequitur and not based in any historical fact. The only viable "community enforcement method" in that situation would have been excommunication, which would not have solved any problems of famine and probably would have exacerbated them.
>The only viable "community enforcement method" in that situation would have been excommunication,
Ostracizing them works too. Excommunication is basically the religious equivalent to capital punishment. No need to jump straight to that for petty stuff and first offenses.
> which would not have solved any problems of famine and probably would have exacerbated them.
Deterrence. They wanted people to keep it in the closet and live just like everyone else.
The broader goal of religion is to get everybody to partake in a system of practices that the society knows works (and if you read history you'll see that the definition of "works" expands as societies become richer and more secure). Work hard, have a family, be honest, don't screw your neighbors wife or steal his stuff, and all that other stuff that basically every religion tells people to do. It's basically all about stability and the closer to the edge a society is the less tolerance they're gonna have for things that cause problems and/or deviance from what works.
>sure, but maybe not 'gold'? Plenty wrong with many families today.
We don't have anything better than a stable marriage for raising kids hence the usage of the phrase "gold standard" since it is the current ideal. Some cultures have more/less community involvement in child rearing than European/Christian cultures and some cultures have marriages of more than two people but pretty much every society (i.e. I can't think of any exceptions) has some sort of marriage system.
>I hope that 'public policy' isn't more 'penalize single-parent households' because that is sure not a positive thing. It's part of the problem.
Curious choice of year, since that's about when emperor Nero married his former (male) slave.
From my amateur reading of history, your theory isn't very well supported; multiple ancient societies had no bans of same-sex couples, which only became widespread later (at least in the West).
I was fat before the pandemic. I continue to be fat during the pandemic. I will be fat after the pandemic is over. Fitness is for other people.
I’m doing great, thanks for asking. I drink good whiskey on my porch while I watch the bomb ass explosive sunsets that Florida is so famous for. I shoot projectile weapons into an earthen berm. I listen to my favorite synthwave playlists. I eat good food. I go to the beach.
Just because I’m fat doesn’t mean I’m doing poorly. In fact I’m willing to bet that I’m happier than most posers who go around telling everyone that they do CrossFit. (That my iPhone has capitalized CrossFit is alarming in itself...)
Before I spent time working out more, I would turn down invites to go rockclimbing (too difficult), kayaking (too exhausting) or anything else that required exertion. My energy levels were low and my general coordination was terrible. I generally felt I couldn't work out because I'm a stereotypical nerd.
Once I realized that working out was more about regular effort than anything else, I quickly gained a lot of benefit. Pre-covid, I was mostly into weightlifting and martial arts, and these days it's a lot of bodyweight workouts and using the rowing machine but the details don't matter very much so much as being active. I've gone from never going out to do things to now knowing I can go run a 5k, join in on rock climbing or whatever (and generally not even be sore afterwards).
I also enjoy sitting on my porch though I typically prefer margaritas. When it comes to the range, I've found there are a lot more activities I feel comfortable doing now - not just static target shooting but full length training courses, stress drills, etc. It's also nice to go to the beach and get a certain amount of positive looks. My SO enjoys that I work out as well.
Exercise does not "make you" happy anymore than eating chocolate does - it may bring pleasure in itself but that's a side benefit. Rather, the primary benefit is now being able to do _whatever_ strikes your fancy and generally deal with significantly less health woes and limitations. It's a nice experience that when you visit your doctor, you get a high five and told your blood pressure and vitals are good.
None of the statements in the comment you reply to relate to your situation so you didn't have to defend yourself. That you did makes it appear like a source of insecurity.
Now maybe it isn't a source of insecurity, but it still looks like it is.
To be fair, the OP talked about home gym equipment like he's talking about weights, but that's not what the Forbes article is about:
"
Trainers have gone online, video-based workouts are the new normal, and high-tech home gym equipment is making its way into more homes than ever before.
"
And even following the link to gym equipment has:
"
From companies that strictly provide a software platform that enables video workouts to hardware companies that facilitate live group workouts, the wide range of options available to consumers is plentiful.
Peloton, one of the more notable names in the industry, experienced a 66% surge in sales earlier in the year as more consumers became willing to shell out thousands of dollars for hardware that connects someone to live classes and other riders.
Tonal, another in-home hardware fitness company, told reporters back in March that the company’s sales tripled at one point in the early days of March when people were being encouraged to stay home more regularly.
"
So really the article is more about remote classes and training and tech to facilitate them, not home gym equipment. So comments about this lifestyle appealing to new people or not are more on topic than topics about buying home weights.
“Free market” isn’t “free everything”. In a free market the bid-ask spread is king. It’s just another kind of tyranny, which, like all such things, benefits those who are set up to take advantage of it, and leaves most others in the dust.
This reminds me of a famously obtuse and obdurate boss who asked for things that were utterly impossible. He had delusions of grandeur which left him convinced that he and only he was qualified to challenge the “cheap, fast, good - pick any two” triangle.
Naturally, I did my best to explain the laws of physics to him, but he wouldn’t hear it. In a spectacular display of Stockholm syndrome I did my best to appease him for four years, but, as many of you can surely predict by this point in the story, I failed in every possible way and eventually gave up. Just wish I could have my four years back.
I was glad to read that OP at least got paid well for his efforts.
I usually walk out about six months in if not sooner. Maybe it's just because I spent so much time freelancing that I had enough experience to recognize a no-win situation.
For this reason I’ve been dockerizing my builds for almost five years. I was late to the Docker party, but when I saw the benefits it brings to build pipelines, I was sold.
It's true that a dockerized build isn’t any simpler than its non-dockerized ancestor, but at least there’s a Dockerfile that lays bare all the black magic and special sauce which goes into each build. And it can be version controlled to watch for drift over time.
This stuff is useful in a corporate setting, but the other fetishization of reproducible builds is just a distraction that can stay where it belongs: open source mailing lists.
But docker builds themselves are generally not reproducible, so I don't really see the gain?
Yes with some effort, they can be made reproducible but the vast majority of the dockerfiles that I've encountered do not pin the versions of every dependency.
Some might pin a few key dependencies but nearly all do an apt/rpm/whatever update at some point followed by a bunch of install commands which don't specify versions.
While your Dockerfile helps you know how a project was built at a specific point in time, it's not going to work forever. Even if the file doesn't change over time, the build it produces will. It's mainly because of installing packages using something like "apt-get install $package". It also can change if the files you're adding with ADD or COPY change.
You don’t have to download the internet upon each build.
First, in a corporate environment it’s common to run builds backed by artifact servers that’ll cache just about anything.
Second, it’s easy to place files in a Docker build context (that’s just a $25 dollar way of saying “next to the Dockerfile”) that would have been downloaded from the internet, but are stored locally instead. This is easier said than done for some formats. Source tarballs? Easy. Anything Java or Debian that requires a pesky server which works a certain way? You’re going to have to use a caching artifact server.
While Docker can be very useful against attempts to "download the internet" (possibly simulating multiple remote servers on a fake network) and aganst accidental changes to source files, configurations and tools, there are sources of intentional nonreproducibility (e.g. embedded timestamps, common in Windows executables) that need to be addressed more directly.
I’d do anything to stop caring for the damned lawn.