Huh? There's lots of mostly superficial information in there about the Kubernetes ecosystem and Kubernetes itself. And most of the products mentioned aren't Red Hat products. I learned a lot by following the links. Did you know about Draft, Brigade, Metaparticle, Pulumi, Ballerina, Fission, Fn, Kubeless, Nuclio, OpenFaaS, OpenWhisk, Riff? And that's just the answers to two of the ~dozen questions.
You might be interested in the serverless interactive landscape: https://s.cncf.io. The installable platform section is all installable on top of Kubernetes.
Because being a hacker is about obsessively working to know all there is about a given subject and become better in a chosen craft. Bocuse was cooking hacker.
Because he was one of the most renowned chefs. Cooking can be quite nerdy, scientific and of course entrepreneurial. Modernist Cuisine is from a former Microsoft [1] guy, for example.
I used LilyPond for quite a while, but I've found MuseScore just as powerful and much easier to use. Data entry is very simple once you get into the 4-C 5-D-# rhythm. I haven't contributed to the project--haven't found any bugs I needed to fix yet--but I am immensely reassured by the availability of the source code.
I find LilyPond has slightly prettier output, and is a bit more capable overall, but converting MuseXML to LY is easy, so I can write the score in MuseScore & make final stylistic changes in the LilyPond file if needed.
The output in their screenshots look nice, but it looks like there are some cases that aren't handled as cleanly as I suspect LilyPond would render them. In the "Praeludium 10" screenshot on their website, look at the first sixteenth note in bar 21, for example. It's rendered really close to the left margin (and obscures the tempo marking); most printed scores would include a tad more padding for readability. Would be interesting to read their layout algorithm and compare it to Lily's (I guess I can!).
Wow, that's weird. I downloaded the score in question (https://musescore.com/opengoldberg/scores/719586) and opened it in MuseScore, and found that for some reason that's the way the score's style controls were set. The "Barline to note distance" (under the Style menu in MuseScore, choose "General…", and then click "Measure" on the left) is by default 1.2 times the space between two lines of the staff. But in this score, it's 0.6! I have no idea why—changing that parameter back to the default seems to yield a much better layout.
There's also something else going on with that screenshot, though. The person who took it put page breaks in different places than in the actual score, which is why that tempo marking is overlapping. If you open that same score in MuseScore, the tempo marking is positioned appropriately.
Maybe I’m just a “lost cause.”