[gouggoug]

Eh. Sure, I slightly mis-read the article, it happens.

Just preface my block of text with a "tangentially, when it comes to 'workloads' ... [the rest of the block of text]", and now you have a generic comment, not about the article, but about something related.

[wutwutwutwut]

When people skim through something in a sloppy way and then focus on writing a rant about it I just don't take their view seriously. If people can't be bothered to carefully digest information, I just assume that they don't know what they are talking about. You may be right or wrong, but I would just choose to listen to people who did their homework instead.

[alexanderdmitri]

Seeing as these are the only two comments you've made on this thread, it seems like you're not ignoring what you claim should be ignored and taking all this a bit too seriously.

Whether it makes sense to add the stage name to a resource name is a decision that is informed by a wider context that includes hosting environment, deployment pattern and configuration approach. It can make sense in some situations and can be a bad idea in other situations.