Live data from Hacker News

Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

blog.chef.io

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#41

Good. Businesses passing judgment on their customers due to public pressure from vocal activists is not a good precedent.

You make it sound like this is some squeaky minority pressure group, as opposed to people making the bold claim that perhaps we should not be holding children apart from their parents in camps with despicable care standards including lack of basic medical care.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the above poster is pointing out the dishonesty in claiming that Chef has the ability to stop family separation and detainment.

I don't see anyone claiming that

> badrequest 17 minutes ago [-]

> > to be clear: I also find policies such as separating families and detaining children wrong and contrary to the best interests of our country.

> "I simply have all the ability and none of the desire to do anything about it"

The root commenter seems to be saying that the CEO of chef has "all the ability" to change this situation.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#44

Regarding the deleted Ruby gems: I think it's unprofessional for developers to try and bring down production services just because they disagree with a company move. It's also a bit immature. The thing to do in this case is to quit. Down your tools and quit, but don't destroy the hard work of your teammates and betray the trust of all your investors and customers.

More fundamentally, this was an attempt to damage the customers of a former employer. In effect, it's no different from logic bombs and tech vandalism in general. While there may be a case for "their public work, they can do whatever" I'd put money on this person announcing their intent to take down customer systems which makes it malicious.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#45
This whole thing has gone too far. By “thing,” I mean that every action of every person, past or present, must inform all future interactions with any other person or entity. It’s a problem caused by the information we have today (who would have known this in the past?) but the end result is that we as a people are more divided and isolated from all people other than those who share our worldview exactly.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see where he's coming from: if he refuses to do business with ICE because he disagrees with something they're doing (whether he or they are actually wrong), he's implicitly endorsing every aspect of every customer he does choose to do business with.

This is common 'tech guy' thinking where an action is immoral and impossible unless it can be generalized to apply to every situation for all time. It's bullshit though. That isn't how life works, it's not a humane standard to hold people to, and no one does it. You make judgements. The squeaky wheel gets noticed. And just because you notice one squeaky wheel doesn't mean you are required to inspect every wheel for p…

[deleted]

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#47

For the record (if it matters) I am very pro-immigration and pro-immigrant rights, but I don't think denying chef services to ICE will actually do anything - let me explain. Lets look at this from another perspective (couldn't hurt, right?). I am a company that sells paper. Some companies might use this paper for very bad things (printing out patents?). Do I comb through all my clients and determine what they are usi…

Paper is an interchangeable commodity with many suppliers. Specific software products often are not. Furthermore, there's a difference between "someone bought this commodity from a distributor" and "we have a contract specifically with this entity".

I agree, I think its not an apples-to-apples comparison, and that is slightly intentional. I want to highlight the same decision to be made under a less frictional commodity to ask the question: where does one draw the line on what they supply? There are some obvious lines probably. You would not want to be a gun manufacturer that sold guns directly to drug cartels, for example.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#48

Regarding the deleted Ruby gems: I think it's unprofessional for developers to try and bring down production services just because they disagree with a company move. It's also a bit immature. The thing to do in this case is to quit. Down your tools and quit, but don't destroy the hard work of your teammates and betray the trust of all your investors and customers.

Ideologues often don't that care much about being professional or reasonable.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#49

I took the liberty of invoking Godwin's Law and re-purposed this template, it should make you consider how weak this statement really is. """ While I understand that many of you and many of our community members would prefer we had no business relationship with the Third Reich, I have made a principled decision, with the support of the IBM executive team, to work with the institutions of our government, regardless of…

That was the first thing I thought of when I read Crist's statement, and it is the reason I have been so harsh in my condemnation.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#50

For the record (if it matters) I am very pro-immigration and pro-immigrant rights, but I don't think denying chef services to ICE will actually do anything - let me explain. Lets look at this from another perspective (couldn't hurt, right?). I am a company that sells paper. Some companies might use this paper for very bad things (printing out patents?). Do I comb through all my clients and determine what they are usi…

Paper is an interchangeable commodity with many suppliers. Specific software products often are not. Furthermore, there's a difference between "someone bought this commodity from a distributor" and "we have a contract specifically with this entity".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN