I feel like there is some overthinking of the monty problem here. The answer no makes the most sense. Consider this, what is behind the doors is predetermined, right? So either the smallest number of people you can hit is 0 or 5. The most is 10. Chosing either a or c guarentees at least 5 people hit. Choosing B limits the number who can be hit to 5 (if they're behind the door). So you should always choose B and always keep the choice.

As someone who runs 7 servers in different datacenters (including cloud, local, and 2 in my home rack), being able to test and update on one system, then push that update to all the others, is a dream. Immutability is a step in that process, since it prevents weirdness from creeping in between updates. My only gripe right now with the options is they all still feel bloated. I miss original Rancher. All I need is Docker/Podman, and maybe wireguard to string the servers together. Likewise, my data hoarder computers need only zfs and enough on top to link them safely (so, wireguard). If I could focus on 2 stacks that I can push out elsewhere easily, I would be soooo much happier. Sain immutability tools are honestly magical.

The currebt rule says "No propritary tools" which seems reasonable when you add in that glueing in is considered "non-replacable" too. The GBA SP needed a single screw to hold in it's battery and nothing else. Plus with proper threading, screws last much longer than plastic clips.