I totally agree and would like to shill for the FOCUS project - https://focus.finops.org/focus-specification/ - which is an open source project to normalize and standardize the billing format of cloud vendors and Saas vendors alike. It brings greater transparency and efficiency to understanding that massive cloud bill your company pays every month.
I've used this schema to merge together AWS, GCP, and Azure into 1 unified cloud bill, which unlocks a ton of understanding of where the money is going inside the cloud bills.
> The important thing is to have a detailed, effective program of work ready to go for whatever the flavor of the month is.
This is basically my theory of how things get done in Washington. There's no grand plan most of the time, just an army of operatives ready with a slide deck to pitch when the conditions for an idea present themselves.
I'm not sure I know what a good analogy looks like. If the two things are identical, then the analogy is uninformative. If they're at all different, you will zero in on the differences rather than the similarities.
Sometimes they can be ok pedagogical tools, but they're easily misused as tools of persuasion.
You’re not supposed to zero in on the ways in which an analogy doesn’t apply. You’re simply supposed to read the analogy in order to see what it’s attempting to _highlight_ about the scenario.
This is a common pet peeve of mine, people not understanding how analogies are supposed to work and getting distracted by the differences. They’re supposed to work like a light filter placed over a lens, something will be highlighted and focus on that, don’t focus on the fact that “but all the colours are different now!”, the only purpose of using the light filter was to highlight a specific part of the image, the fact that it also coloured everything wrong temporarily is supposed to be ignored.
You know, just to use an analogy to explain analogies. Gotta be as meta as possible.
