That function won't block the rendering operation. Having a lot of timeouts/etc. will potentially slow the JS down in general (indirectly slowing the page down or costing battery, CPU, etc., but it will not cause the user-action jank that the article is talking about.
There's nothing inherently about Puppet that means it has to manage multi-service "whole OS"-like installations. It can just as easily be put to the task of a Dockerfile: install dependencies and deployables for a single application. Its robust ability to manage things like user accounts, packages, scheduled jobs (e.g. for alerting, though you would have to install at least a second service for this: _crond) and the like makes it vastly superior to Dockerfile shell scripts for complex tasks.
Think of puppet more like a way of simplifying your Dockerfiles to have fewer crazy shell commands in total, rather than hiding the craziness in layers and hoping it all composes properly. If you do use lots of layers, Puppet can make your life much easier, since it can be better at detecting previous layers' changes and working around them (think redundant package install commands. Even the no-op "already installed!" command takes time; if you're installing hundreds of packages--many people are, for better or worse--that can eat up build time).
Puppet isn't a VM provisioner; it can also be used as a replacement for large parts of your Dockerfile, or a better autoconf to set up the environment/deps for your application to run in.
The point about layer complexity is a great one I didn't even consider. Your "config" step is no longer a mish mash of dozens COPY/RUN/etc directives (resulting in N new intermediate image layers), it just results in a single atomic layer where you run the Puppet bootstrap.
Obviously you could accomplish this with shell scripts as well to constrain your config step into one docker RUN directive, but I prefer the declarative state approach to the imperative one in this case.
If--if--I grant your premise that biological perspectives are significant in this discussion, I think that procreation and long-term reproductive goals aren't the same things at all. Procreation is short-term; create the possibility of a lineage and you've "succeeded". Humans don't work like that; we are eusocial animals with complex communities; "impregnate and move on" is not an evolutionary tendency we embody.
That said, your premise is invalid. Biological prerogatives are not significant in the not-even-slightly-sexually-premised interactions between members of the 21st century tech community with career motivations and numerous other factors at work that evolution did not prepare them for. Saying that "biological prerogatives" are a significant factor here is like saying that a lemur let loose in a supermarket would be drawn to product branding based on how likely a given brand was to help the lemur secure a mate--too many factors have changed for simple parallels to be drawn.
Edit: spelling, I still keep forgetting this isn't markdown.
Biological perspectives are relevant in any discussion involving human behavior. We are biological organisms, our mood and behavior are governed by chemical responses in our brain.
I guess we are in tech so we should be able to suppress all the impulses, desires, and feelings that have been carved into us over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.
Some people--a lot of people--just don't have those thoughts. That doesn't make them better or worse than people who do; both can do good, or harmful things. I think the point of GP's comment was that there are many of people out there who simply don't feel that way.
There are a lot of ways that might play out: they might not be attracted to others until someone is attracted to them; they might be attracted, but have no automatic desire to turn that into action/hitting on people; they might not be attracted to others period, et cetera.
> The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive ... makes [you] a straight/bi male
You're still assuming the two go hand in hand. Your impressions might be confirmation/selection bias: people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less obvious to you (insofar as they are competition for people you find attractive), and are also likely less inclined to jump into public discussions on the subject, given that a lack of sexual aggression is, in many demographics/situations, a basis for shaming.
>people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less...
No, I'm listening to women. I'm watching the cat call videos. There are lots of guys out there that have these thoughts. What percentage they are? I don't know and don't really care because it doesn't matter. They exist. Period. Saying as much doesn't harm anyone. Not saying so does.
My original message stands; if you feel like being an asshole to a woman, resist it - be decent.
