lennivelkant

Are we talking about the same guy that opted to scrap all sensors for his self-driving cars because he figures humans can drive with eyes only, they don't need more than a camera?

"I didn't give you permission to get caught!"

In that respect, I'm rather glad my employer is on the slow and steady side. Yeah, sure, they're very much behind on some topics and just recently started catching up on others, but their cautious scepticism towards new tech has spared us some headaches. I'd rather take the frustration of not getting all the tools I'd like to have than the stress of "ooh, look, this new shiny thing is gonna replace that other system you just got used to!"

I love this

I hate it too but I love it.

Corporate management often seems to think of changes as isolated, independent events, where the measurable impact of each change can be attributed to that change. I think it's a symptom of the pathological need for KPIs and Data-based decision-making. Making big decisions is scary, and data can help with informing them, but I get the impression some managers grow so dependent on using numbers as a crutch to spare them from having to justify their decision with their own best judgement.

They didn't fully hand it to Linux yet. We still have to earn that. Ideological appeal / privacy concern alone isn't enough for many people if the jump seems too scary, particularly if it feels like a one-directional leap of faith. What if they don't like it on the other side? Better the devil you know...

We need to build bridges, in both directions: help and encourage people to switch to Linux, but also promise them help to get back, basically an "out" if they don't like it. I see plenty of guides for migrating to Linux, but how about getting back to Windows?

It's okay not to like Linux, it's okay to be scared or apprehensive, and it's okay to get cold feet and return to the familiar. Maybe some time in the future they'll try again.

That's the usual case with arms races: Unless you are yourself a major power, odds are you'll never be able to fully stand up to one (at least not on your own, but let's not stretch the metaphor too far). Often, the best you can do is to deterr other, minor powers and hope major ones never have a serious intent to bring you down.

In this specific case, the number of potential minor "attackers" and the hurdle for "attack" mKe it attractive to try to overwhelm the amateurs at least. You'll never get the pros, you just hope they don't bother you too much.

Still illegal. Not immoral, but a lot of our laws aren't built on morality.

That was my point, actually, expanding on the previous point of the policy being designed to kill small businesses. The big corps can do that, pretending to be ever so regretful about the firings, while small ones face insolvency.

Everything about this seems almost designed to murder small businesses.

Those with enough capital backing, resources and funds can take the hit, maybe cut some expenses, shedding crocodile tears about how terrible the economic impact of this trade war has affected them while dispassionately watching scores of no-longer-employees pack their things and try to figure out how to tell their kids that the promised trip next month they'd been looking forward to all year is cancelled.

Edit: This might have been ambiguous. I was trying to highlight how big corporations can survive by doing what big business does to protect the bottom line. Small businesses, obviously, can't do that.

The point is that the company being sued has to pay those millions in the first place. The law firm does pay itself rather well for that work, but I'd consider class actions to be one of the more defensible legal actions.

The "Contain, Verify, Explain Foundation", dedicated to the study of and protection against cyber-anomalies