We deploy small clusters everywhere in the same pattern, I love argocd. This article fails to understand the use case for kubernetes, and arguably doesn't fully understand the cloud.
Kubernetes is revolutionary, to think it's not is foolish.
GUYS! We thought up a new way of how to describe why Facebook is bad, we'll make it seem like this hasn't been happening since "Likes" came into existence and watch people revolt!
If you're butthurt about your privacy and think big brother is spying on you, don't fucking use Facebook.
> We compete by offering a better work environment (from the perspectives of some), better problems to work on, equity in the company, and more control over the purpose and outcome of your work.
While the spare bedroom of my apartment may not be many people's idea of a "better" work environment, we too offer much better problems to solve then that of other tech companies recruiting developers in our area as well as equity. Since we're such a small, close knit team, each of us certainly has the utmost potential to make giant impacts on a day to day basis, and that we do, but that's practically a given when talking about a startup.
> What you're arguing is empirically false. I know tons of startups in the valley that are founded by people who started elsewhere and moved here. Hardly any move back. Those that do have to because of our moronic visa system or move to Boston, Seattle, or New York.
I never said don't eventually migrate to the valley if it's where you feel your company needs to be to position itself for success. So long as you have the resources to be able to move your entire team and their families, as well as the capital to compete with other tech companies while recruiting - Go for it.
> They are almost all hiring
I'm sure they are, who wouldn't be when you have millions of dollars of other people money to throw around at your problems?
> they manage to find good people (not without a good amount of effort), if they can't afford offices they work out of their living rooms and that's just fine.
Touche, we have had no problems recruiting extremely talented individuals, even given the fact we hardly have any perks nor health/dental/pet benefits.
> they don't travel during rush hour so traffic is a non-issue
Sometimes there's no way of avoiding travel during peak times, so your solution just won't cut it.
> if past performance is any indication of future results (which may not be true, is that what you're arguing?) they will make up a disproportionately large portion of the successful (in the admittedly uniquely SV sense) tech companies of the next few years.
That's not what I'm arguing, overall what I'm stating is that geographic location matters very little depending on the market you're pursuing. Obviously a vast majority of the future successful startups will come from the valley strictly due to the amount of VC money being thrown around. However, don't discredit the amount of misinformation and bad advice being fed to founders, as this only further pollutes the thoughts of many to believe that Silicon Valley is the only place their company has a chance to succeed. They've got much better things to think about then what city they need to position themselves in to possibly increase their chances of success, like their product and the well being of their team.
Facebook was first developed in Massachusetts while Mark was attending Harvard, another top tier educational institute. Dropbox and AirBnB were both YC backed companies, and due to the rules of YC, were essentially "forced" into migrating to the valley.