Update from Chef

https://blog.chef.io/2019/09/23/an-important-update-from-chef/

by kyoob • 7 years ago

251 213 7 years ago

blog.chef.io

Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous admins? hypocrisy x10

I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.

aaronbrethorst• 7 years ago

The creator of Ansible's thoughts on this situation: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874

rlt• 7 years ago

This seems like poor form coming from a competitor.

Jonnax• 7 years ago

It's interesting how sincerely using the phrase "fake news" says so much about a person.

What does this have at all to do with made up stories?

sarcasmatwork2• 7 years ago

It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for.

What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>

etchalon4• 7 years ago

Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers."

As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.

dmitrygr• 7 years ago

Previous adm deported more people:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im...

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat...

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...

anon9001• 7 years ago

You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy:

In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date.

I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing?

Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans.

Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy.

Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common.

If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way.

If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well.

In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect.

That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware.

Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration.

edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.

minimaxir• 7 years ago

Another reminder that bad press and community/customer pressure indeed works. And there's nothing wrong with that.

qsymmachus• 7 years ago

Direct action gets the goods!

endianswap• 7 years ago

Eh, maybe? It "worked" in that they're choosing to not renew the contracts over the next year, but he admitted that over the last year employees have been fighting for this and have been ignored until now, which is pretty shitty. For revenue that appears to be only $95k USD (the amount they're earning from the contract that they're instead going to match to charity)?

https://twitter.com/DannyPage/status/1176155955173552133

floatingatoll3• 7 years ago

There are two ways to get something right:

1) The first time

2) Later than that

They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms.

“Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.

toomuchtodo3• 7 years ago

It just means someone else is going to pick that contract up.

Disclaimer: I bid on federal gov projects. The work is fairly fungible.

ianleeclark2• 7 years ago

This isn't a bad thing. It's an action that will cause retooling and any of the associated costs to happen when they otherwise wouldn't.

Let them pick the contract up. Hopefully they charge more, take longer to implement, and are generally worse.

RickJWagner• 7 years ago

If I sold a competing product, I'd beat them to death with this.

Where does it end? Maybe next year Chef decides they don't like DEA. Or ATF. Or something else.

It is not noble to deny work with the US Government. It's inefficient, bureaucratic, and deeply flawed. But it does a powerful lot of good.

swsieber4• 7 years ago

I have mixed feelings. It was basically a mob-driven decision. Mob made decisions can have good or bad outcomes, but the action being pressured for by mobs is usually irrational.

I think there's something to be said for listening to your customers and community. But how much of the pushback was from the community? Certainly the developer who yanked their code. And from what I've read the internal developers too.

But I think having to fear crowds of probably less than completely informed people generally lacking nuance is not something to be lauded.

floatingatoll3• 7 years ago

Do you consider the specific action requested by the mob in this specific instance to be irrational?

skywhopper• 7 years ago

There was no mob. Chef is a company that a lot of people in the tech community had a lot of respect for. So after the gems were pulled, revealing their sloppy handling of their own codebase, followed by their CEO and CTO coming out with embarrassing statements that failed to justify their position, and blamed their poor practices on someone who hasn't been an employee in years, and had no real power over them, they got some well-deserved pushback from peers, customers, employees, and community members. If it felt like a mob, that's because these people with a tremendous amount of power really did hurt a lot of people with their stances. I'm glad they've changed their minds.

mempko• 7 years ago

Why are mob decisions irrational ? I feel this is just an irrational idea people have without any evidence to back it up.

azr79• 7 years ago

It was basically a mob-driven decision

nothing else works, people work with the tools they have at their disposition, and if companies don't have any morals when it comes to us (results driven approach no matter the consequences), why should we have any morals when dealing with companies? We're just playing at their own game, and getting good results, and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep on going as long as there are results.

not_enough• 7 years ago

Good, but not enough.

They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.

prepend5• 7 years ago

I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.

tylermac13• 7 years ago

That's quite the stretch. Equating the moral issue of detaining children indefinitely to producing a beverage is really something.

KingMachiavelli• 7 years ago

/s ?

Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.

rudiv• 7 years ago

Someone from a non-American perspective might think of how many murders of union organizers they've gone along with before the obesity epidemic.

revscat• 7 years ago

Any idea how much damage sugar does?

Plastic, too. Coca-Cola is the largest source of plastic waste in the world.

tenaciousDaniel• 7 years ago

^ and that's why I supported the Chef CEO's original position. You people are never satisfied.

INTPenis• 7 years ago

That's harsh. Once you're dug into a conf mgmt system it's hard to dig yourself out.

I've never used Chef myself but I have noticed some message board posts lately claiming it's dead in the water and Ansible is the victor.

I've used Ansible since it came out, came straight from Puppet, so I'm biased. But I don't care what you use, as long as it works.

aleph-• 7 years ago

Is it hard to dig yourself out though?

CameronNemo• 7 years ago

1. If there is nobody who knows how the previous conf mgmt system was configured, or how the technology works.

2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer.

We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.

outworlder4• 7 years ago

Is it hard to dig yourself out though?

It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc).

But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you.

One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.

brenden2• 7 years ago

I used to use Chef, have mostly switched to Ansible. Not sure about "dead in the water" but my experience has been that Ansible is a better tool.

marcosdumay• 7 years ago

Coming from Puppet, I almost migrated to Chef long ago because Puppet lacks stability (not "the system is down" stability, but "all my scripts stopped working again this month"), but looking at it, I concluded Chef lacked it too.

I'm still at the "shell scripts are enough for everybody" camp, but Ansible is looking stable enough to use.

gtsteve• 7 years ago

I was under the impression that this is a consulting contract that will eventually end. They haven't said anything about banning government agencies using the product directly, so my guess is that said agencies are just going to have to find someone else to provide that expertise while they continue to use Chef's products.

Twirrim• 7 years ago

It's an open source project. ICE can, and likely will, continue to use the software.

Chef is just no longer going to provide them with a paid support contract.

sl1ck731• 7 years ago

Which, in my experience, makes continued use of it completely impossible. There is no other product I've had to sit through vendor calls as much with while trying to do some kind of maintenance on the Chef server.

dredmorbius3• 7 years ago

ICE will have to find, and pay, those willing and able to do such support.

Those willing and able to do such support will find themselves with a very narrowed set of non-ICE clients.

There's a reason moral suasion and taboo are such effective social management engines.

dastx• 7 years ago

All these replies saying ansible is the better tool. Highly disagree.

Ansible is too procedural. "do this if that otherwise something else. Then that. Then this other thing". This is very much prone to human error.

As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do (plus the overheads of every ssh connection that it creates every single time it generates a script). You might as well just write a bash script that does it all for you and execute it over ssh.

avtar• 7 years ago

As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do

These examples seem as declarative as Chef and Puppet:

https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/modules/file_module....

https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/modules/template_mod...

StreamBright3• 7 years ago

I have used all 3 of them in the order of Chef, Puppet, Ansible. I still have bad dreams about Chef & Puppet. I never had any serious problem with Ansible. Maybe because its design is much simpler.

takeda• 7 years ago

I personally used Chef, Salt and Ansible, Ansible was the easiest to start with, but also the least dependable one, and didn't deliver on one thing it supposed to - reproducibility.

On the same image it sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. This was happening on Amazon Linux 2, and basically once in a while yum database got corrupted. I'm suspecting there was a conflict between yum run by Amazon Linux 2 on boot, and ansible didn't respect locks acquired by yum?

commandlinefan2• 7 years ago

Isn't chef open source? This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party.

ng128• 7 years ago

Obviously. Same thing with Palantir -- ICE could just move their data to a different solution.

This isn't about affecting change, it's about feeling good about ourselves.

dragonwriter7• 7 years ago

This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party

Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost.

If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc.

Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.

briffle• 7 years ago

I don't know much about chef (have used ansible and salt-stack). In a previous story, it talked about how a developer removed his code from a repository of Ruby Gems that chef uses, and broke many systems that had that as a dependency. And that Chef then "fixed the issue" after a bit of time.

I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?

Four8Five• 7 years ago

They fixed the issue by literally forking and removing his name from everything.

yjftsjthsd-h• 7 years ago

Um. Do you mean that they directly took the existing code and took his name out of it? That would be a pretty big no-no from a copyright perspective. (But it also wouldn't do anything, so I assume I'm misunderstanding)

crispyporkbites• 7 years ago

I assume they pay taxes in america? Shouldn’t they also move the company to a different country and stop employing American citizens?

AzzieElbab• 7 years ago

This kind of making IBM look smart wrt to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866

ARandomerDude• 7 years ago

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.

The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP.

We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.

happytoexplain• 7 years ago

Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement

This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.

tracker15• 7 years ago

There are plenty of politicians and candidates advocating for abolishing CBP/ICE.

didgeoridoo• 7 years ago

How about a literal headline in a mainstream left publication? https://www.thenation.com/article/abolish-police-instead-let...

homonculus1• 7 years ago

People unironically post on HN that prisons should be abolished on a semi-regular basis. It's not groupthink by any means, but some people have far more extreme beliefs about the law than I think you realize.

temac• 7 years ago

You can't balance despicable policies by being merely competent in your other missions.

chris_wot• 7 years ago

I’m sure the East German Secret Police did some good work too. Same with the Gestapo. Want to fund them or provide services to them?

tfehring• 7 years ago

As is often the case, it's important to distinguish absolute value (the total net positive or negative created by, say, CBP or law enforcement in general) from marginal value (the additional net positive or negative created when you increase their funding).

It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today.

Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.

iamaelephant• 7 years ago

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.

That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".

dwild2• 7 years ago

The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.

Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.

ProAm• 7 years ago

Who is Barry? (legitimate question) Im assuming head of sales at Chef? After a quick search on Twitter and Youtube he's the CEO

nvahalik• 7 years ago

Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist.

Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office.

Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?

kungtotte2• 7 years ago

So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions?

Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?

tracker15• 7 years ago

Were you this outraged about the conditions when Obama was in office?

dragonwriter7• 7 years ago

So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions?

Note that the investigatory group within ICE (Homeland Security Investigations) that is key to fighting human trafficking is almost entirely separate from the rest of ICE and has raised being part of ICE in the current environment, because of the backlashes the rest of ICEs practices have been producing, as inhibiting their work, because it reduces the willingness of people they need voluntary cooperation from to work with them, because “ICE”.

So, another reason to dismantle ICE.

big_chungus2• 7 years ago

Quit calling them concentration camps. That's ridiculous and hyperbolic. No one forced people to cross the border illegally, whereas Jews were rounded up and starved to death. Not even a close comparison. By your logic, all prisons are "concentration camps".

If you don't want them held until trial, what should we do instead? They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.

MattGrommes• 7 years ago

You can't look at what's happening right now and think those policies haven't changed since they were implemented. There's explicit orders from above to transform these policies into atrocious deterrents so people will see them and reconsider coming to the US for help.

'Abolish ICE' means that the agency as it currently exists needs to go. That doesn't mean we don't need at least some of the services they provide. It means they've become a harmful agency with a culture of abuse in many areas, not just with detention. Tear down the bad agency and start over with something new.

ianleeclark2• 7 years ago

Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking

Ahh, yes, the good ole "fight fire with fire," approach where you let your agents run rampant sexually abusing children, yet claim to be doing good.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-se...

dwild2• 7 years ago

I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?

Yeah, what about that works? That work justify doing unethical things on the side?

buboard2• 7 years ago

I love this kind of free-market activism. I just wish people didnt force people to bake cakes

tracker15• 7 years ago

I'm not sure that I agree on liking this... the direction things can go, such as payment processors acting as censors, etc. can get pretty Orwellian.

buboard2• 7 years ago

businesses can have ideologies. the problem is when there aren't alternatives, or can't be alternatives because of regulation

abnoxae• 7 years ago

I really don't understand how can people associate a tool with an ideology.

Do we stop manufacturing cars because it helps support many unfavorable people/organizations?

dominicr• 7 years ago

Car manufacturers are not really accurate metaphors as it is CBP and ICE themselves who are carrying out actions that many people strongly disagree with. Whereas a car company has no control over its customers

If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them.

There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.

IfOnlyYouKnew• 7 years ago

IBM got a lot of deserved grief for working with Germany in the 1940s. Arms manufacturers are rightly shamed for some of their customers.

I'm somewhat certain your beef is with the idea of that specific organisation being considered bad, not with the reaction to that determination.

cfv3• 7 years ago

So much pearl clutching and "but Obama" in this thread.

You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public.

The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.

ng128• 7 years ago

I think it is reasonable to point out the hypocrisy. By the numbers, Obama was just as tough on our southern border.

faissaloo3• 7 years ago

It strikes me as a sort of whataboutism

cfv3• 7 years ago

By the numbers, bathtubs consistently kill more americans than terrorists have in the last several decades.

It's not about the numbers, it's all about not being an absolute disgrace while handling the topic.

PhasmaFelis4• 7 years ago

You're focusing on numbers of detainees when the larger issue is the treatment of those detainees. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21052376

This is why people are crying whataboutism. "Attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument," per Wikipedia.

Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.

amalter• 7 years ago

Indeed Obama was "deporter in chief" - all presidents are.

However, the rule of law was still enforced. Obama concentrated on immigrants with a criminal record and those "picked up" at the border. Family separation was rare, and there was an advocacy and appeal process. USCIS judges were not silenced and neutered. It was far from a perfect system, but there was an attempt to make it compassionate.

This is why the numbers don't tell the whole story. G.W returned more than Obama, Clinton more than G.W., H.W. more than Clinton.

This is not a Obama vs Trump issue - this is a "Every US President in modern history" vs Trump issue. It is possible to enforce immigration laws compassionately. It is not hypocrisy to call this out.

75dvtwin• 7 years ago

People mention that ICE polices are Obama-era polices, because it shows something.

It shows that the people in US, are influenced, to a large degree by selective outrage.

Selective outrage, is not just a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Selective outrage leads to selective justice, selective justice leads to unfair justice, and that leads to Orwellian state or dictatorship.

So showing the poison in selective outrage is totally appropriate.

PhasmaFelis4• 7 years ago

Intellectual dishonesty is pretending that Trump's policies are identical to Obama's.

For example, at least one of the infamous chain-link-cage detention centers was indeed built under Obama. That's worth knowing, and it's also worth knowing that, by law, children were to be kept there for no more than 72 hours before being transferred to better quarters.

The zero-tolerance policy that separated children from parents as the norm rather than an exception, that resulted in children being stuffed in those cages far beyond their intended capacity and left there for weeks, in unsanitary conditions, was all Trump. The deaths of an unprecedented seven children in one year in ICE custody, despite the total number of detainees nationwide being lower, was on Trump's watch.

Sources:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigran...

https://www.apnews.com/fdfbafe1f2784a759bc7c3a8e8ddbcab

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/why-are-migrant-children...

Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.

huntedsnark• 7 years ago

Many people are upset about the child separation and detention policies which were not standard under the Obama administration as opposed to deportation. Conflating the two seems to embody the same intellectual dishonesty you're railing against.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wr...

human201903102• 7 years ago

Even assuming outrage is selective, the question remains: was the outrage inappropriately withheld before, or is it inappropriately applied now?

If indeed it was inappropriately withheld in the past, I don't see any moral necessity to remain consistent, even if the flip-flopping turns out to be politically convenient.

dang2• 7 years ago

Please don't do political flamewar on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. It's incompatible with intellectual curiosity, which is what this site exists for.

Yes, some political overlap is inevitable. But flamewar is not, and holding that distinction is key to preventing this site from exploding itself.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cfv3• 7 years ago

Agreed. Can you please do something about the people paraphrasing the 14 words and attempting to sealion the thread? Please.

user59944612• 7 years ago

Summary: "After deep introspection and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts."

What's ICE and CBP?

braythwayt• 7 years ago

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs and Border Protection.

user59944612• 7 years ago

Thank you very much.

StreamBright3• 7 years ago

> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist.

Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.

cjbprime2• 7 years ago

Seeking asylum is not a crime.

StreamBright3• 7 years ago

Who said it was? You can go to any ____legal____ port of entry of the United States and apply for asylum. There is 2.3% chance for a Mexican to get it granted (based on 2015 data). The problem is when people try to cross the border illegally (which is a crime) dragging their children along. Not too surprisingly this is what the US CBP people want to stop.

jdm2212• 7 years ago

I'm curious with choices like this: how, concretely, does this change anything for the better? Was Chef on the critical path for any of ICE's distasteful work? If not, which part of the agency (and in support of which mission) was Chef working with, and is it good to impair that?

quotemstr• 7 years ago

Good. Actions like Chef's create a business opportunity for the rest of us. There's nothing wrong with working with defense and security sector. When SV companies refuse to enter this sector, they create a vacuum for others to fill and profit.

This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality?

Thank you, Chef.

Update from Chef

Related Stories