No a k8s dev, but I feel like this is the answer. K8s isn't usually just scheduling pods round robin or at random. There's a lot of state to evaluate, and the problem of scheduling pods becomes an NP-hard problem similar to bin packing problem. I doubt the implementation tries to be optimal here, but it feels a computationally heavy problem.
In what way is it NP-hard? From what I can gather it just eliminates nodes where the pod wouldn't be allowed to run, calculates a score for each and then randomly selects one of the nodes that has the lowest score, so trivially parallelizable.
And yet they seem to have lost all that knowledge from Win8 onwards. WinForms, WPF, UWP, WinUI, MAUI... All of these with their own metaphores, design language, and they all feel half-baked, full of bugs.
I'm not that familiar with his employment history; you could be right. Either way, he'd still be an example. If you have longer term ones, I'm sure it would add to the discussion
I recall James Goodnight of SAS coding while being a CEO. As per https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/05/12/an-intervi..., he still programs from time to time but doesn't have a specific part in development. In looking at the articles to refresh my memory, it is clear he is one of the good CEO's
> UK users are accessing US servers to get service.
That's called offering the service to UK users. I don't host my blog in 165 times in each country in order to let people to access my content/services.
> > > UK users are accessing US servers to get service.
> That's called offering the service to UK users.
It is not – not under US law, not under common law (in the UK/Commonwealth).
Under US law and in common law systems generally, a website being merely accessible from country XYZ does not, by itself, constitute «offering a service» into XYZ. Courts look for purposeful targeting of, or meaningful interaction with, users in that place. Mere accessibility is not enough. See [0] for a precedent.
1. The US approach in a nutshell.
a) Personal-jurisdiction basics: a court needs «minimum contacts» that the website operator created with the forum. The US Supreme Court has previously stressed that the plaintiff’s location or where effects are felt is not enough if the defendant did not create forum contacts.
b) The «Zippo sliding scale» test distinguishes passive sites from interactive, commercial ones. Passive presence online generally does not create jurisdiction. See [1] for a landmark opinion.
c) The Fourth Circuit’s ALS Scan test says a state may exercise jurisdiction when the defendant directs electronic activity into the state, with a manifest intent to do business or interact there, and that activity gives rise to the claim. Simply putting content on the web is not enough. Again, see [0] for an established precedent.
2. The common law/European «targeting» idea
a) UK and EU courts apply a similar targeting notion in various contexts. The CJEU in Pammer/Alpenhof held that a site must be directed to the consumer’s member state; mere accessibility is insufficient. UK cases on online IP use also examine whether activity is targeted at UK users. See [2] for an established precedent on the other side of the pond.
b) Data-protection law is also explicit: the GDPR applies to non-EU operators when they offer goods or services to people in the EU or monitor them. Recital 23 and the EDPB’s guidelines list indicators such as using a local language or currency, shipping to the territory, local contact details, and targeted ads. Accessibility alone does not trigger the rule.
To recap, if a US-hosted site simply serves content that UK users can reach, that alone does not mean the operator is «offering a service» to the UK or its citizens under US law or general common-law principles. Liability or regulatory reach typically turns on targeting and purposeful availment, not mere availability. Circle back to [0] for details again.
This was my take as well, but I'm a MySQL / Redis shop. I really have no idea what tables MySQL has in RAM at any given moment, but with Redis I know what's in RAM.
reply