It could be. Maybe it surfaced because of some detection, then the depressurization killed it.

Considering other animals have been known to leave areas, there seems to be something we are missing or currently unable to detect/measure.

Rant incoming:

“Fast casual” has ruined dinning. The concept is a volume play of moving as many customers as quick as possible while still giving “personalized service” with the least number of servers possible. Naturally this becomes a race to the bottom with “service” taking the biggest hit since it is the most subjective experience and thus the hardest to measure. The worst part is that most American diners we are slowly lowering expectations in which allows for further reductions in service and makes the experience even worse, but “with prices like these, what can you expect?”

I don’t know as though that is a law, but with the new Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, it is a valid possibility. If “murdering your political rivals” is on the table, then “sentencing a terrorist to death” is probably covered.

One of the ways to stall a bill is to talk about it forever. Here’s the wiki explaining it.

Technically speaking the filibuster is only acceptable because the rules of congress allow them, but the rules are changed and Agreed on by all members every year. So “nuke the filibuster” would mean to disallow it in the procedural rules of congress.

You hit them with a sword and they will tell you the time.

I would expect it to work like a galvanic anode.

“It’s turtles all the way down”.

Thanks for responding in good faith!

I agree that while CS did screw up in pushing out a bad update, only having a single vendor for a critical process that can take the whole business down is equally a screw up. Ideally companies should have had CS installed on half the systems and a secondary malware prevention system on every DR and “redundant” system. Having all of a company’s eggs in a single basket is very bad.

All the above being said; to properly implement a fully redundant, to the vendor level, system would require either double the support team, or a massive development effort to tie the management of the systems together. Either way, that is going to be very expensive. The point being: Reducing the budget of IT departments will further cause the consolidation of vendors and increase the number of vendor caused complete outage events.

It feels like you have an agenda that you are trying to apply to the CrowdStrike event and just so happen to slandering IT as an innocent bystander to the agenda you are putting forward.

If you had to summarize the goal of your initial post in less then 10 words, what would it be?

Maybe they should offer a real time patcher for the security vulnerabilities in the OOB KVM, I know a great vulnerability database offered by a company that does this for a lot of systems world wide! /s

bloated IT budgets

Can you point me to one of these companies?

In general IT is run as a “cost center” which means they have to scratch and save everywhere they can. Every IT department I have seen is under staffed and spread too thin. Also, since it is viewed as a cost, getting all teams to sit down and make DR plans (since these involve the entire company, not just IT) is near impossible since “we may spend a lot of time and money on a plan we never need”.

The dude abides.

https://lebowski.social/c/achievers Is just far out dude.

C

E

Switching planes also means recertification of pilots, which is a long and expensive process.

It’s being done.

The uber rich spending is generally via “business expenses”.

For example: Elon doesn’t own his private jets, SpaceX does. When he takes it down to Hawaii for a 15 minute investor meeting followed by hanging out with them for the weekend at the nicest hotels with all the fixings and flys back, that’s all business expenses that he “derived no personal benefit from”, so SpaceX writes it all off as a business expense, thus reducing their tax burden and he never personally gets taxed for it.

A less egregious example that happens considerably more: a person has a rental property that resides between their normal living area, which they consider the “home office”, and an area of interest they travel too. They go to the area of interest, but make sure to stop by the rental on the way there and back. The milage from the home to the rental is business miles, and thus they can deduct the travel expense from any business incomes.

I am not advocating for any of those, but it doesn’t really matter if these business expenses are legal because the IRS doesn’t have a great way to determine these minor abuses, and certainly doesn’t have the people power to track it down.

Good bot.