That sounds more like a feature than a bug. I remember when Twitter was actually useful. You could sort by “new” as the default and your feed only included stuff from people you followed. And then it went to complete shit with the sort defaulting to “fuck your preferences”, sponsored content and your feed being littered with click bait, paid content and all the other bits of enshitification. And that is all built on the algorithmic selection of content.
Brussel Sprouts. Absolutely hated them as a kid, which I blame my mother for. She “steamed” them in the microwave in a dish with water. Turned them into a slimy, horrible mush. My wife sautes them in a pan, with bacon. It’s one of my absolute favorite dishes now.
I don’t see in what way having a PSN account would make Horizon Zero Dawn safer on PC.
It’s safer for Sony’s stock price, as they can report higher numbers of people on the PlayStation Network and greater “player engagement”. What, you thought this was about improving the experience for the customer? No one gives a fuck about them.
Step one, take a deep breath and realize that, unless you own the company, killing yourself to save it is dumb.
That said, there are some things you can do to try and improve thing:
Learn to “talk business”. Yup, this one sucks, but it’s also the only way you are ever going to get traction. Take that Windows 7 system, why do you want to upgrade it? “Because security”, right? Well, how does that translate into costs to the business? Because, businesses don’t care about security. I work in cybersecurity for a large (Fortune 500) company and upper management has given exactly zero fucks about security for a very long time. They only started coming around when that lack of security starting costing them real money. They still give zero fucks about security, but they do care about risks to the business and what that might cost them. Having security and money linked in their heads means we can actually implement better security. You need to put the lack of security of that Windows 7 system in terms of dollars potentially lost. Something like the Annualized Loss Expectancy. If that box gets popped, how much would it reasonably cost the business to recover from? Is that something which you expect to happen once a year, once every five years? These numbers will be mostly made up and wildly inaccurate. But, the goal is to just get in the right ballpark. How does that cost compare with the cost to upgrade? What about other possible mitigating controls you could use to protect it? Does it need to have internet access? Could you VLAN it off into it’s own little world and keep it running with reduced risk? Give management the expected costs of that system becoming patient zero in a ransomware outbreak and then give them several options and the associated costs (upfront and ongoing) to secure it. Have multiple options. A high cost one (e.g. replace the box), a low cost one (FW and VLAN controls) and the one you actually want right in between (OS Upgrade). Managers are like children, they need to feel like they made a choice, even if you steered them into it.
Next, don’t try to boil the ocean. You’re not going to fix everything, everywhere, all at once. Get some small wins under your belt and prove to management that you aren’t going to break the business. Show that you aren’t just some greenhorn cowboy who is going to break the business because you think you are so smart. If you can make a plan for that Windows 7 system, show the costs involved and actually get the job done smoothly, then you might be able to move on to other things. Sure, you might actually be right; but, you could also end up breaking a lot of stuff in your quest to have perfect security (which you’ll never actually achieve). Take one one or maybe two things at a time. It’s a slow process and it leaves things broke far longer than you will like, but it builds trust and gets more action than just screaming about everything at everyone. Slow is steady, steady is fast.
Moving on, be aware that you probably don’t know everything about the business, and the business functioning is paramount. Why does everyone have local admin? Because that’s the way it’s always been and it has always worked. If you start pulling those permissions back, what processes get broken? This is a tough one, because it means documenting other people’s processes, many of which probably only exist in the heads of those people. How often are people moving around critical files using CIFS and the share. It’s fucking stupid, but there’s a good chance that the number is greater than zero. You pull local admin from people, and now work doesn’t get done. If work doesn’t get done, the business loses money. You need to have a plan which shows that you have considered these things. Design a slow rollout which phases local admin rights out for the users who are least likely to affect the business. Again, slow is steady, steady is fast.
And thins brings us to another point, auditors are your friends. No really, those folks who come in and ask you where all your documentation is and point out every single flaw in your network, ya, they deserve hugs not hate. You’re in healthcare, where does your business fall on regulations like HIPAA (US-centric but similar regulations may apply in other countries)? 'Cause nothing says, “fuck your wallet” to a business quite like failing an audit. If you can link the security failures of the business to required audit controls, that’s going to give you tons of ammunition to get stuff done. I’ve watched businesses move mountains to comply with audit controls. Granted, it all becomes “checkbox security” at some point; but, that is vastly better than nothing.
All that said, company loyalty is a sucker’s game. I’m guessing you’re early in your career and an early IT career likely means job hopping every 3 years or so. Unless you get a major promotion and associated pay bump in that time, it’s probably time to move on. Later in your career, this can slow down as you top out in whatever specialization you choose (or you get lured in by the siren song of management). So, there is that to consider. It might just be time to go find greener pastures and discover that pastures are green because the cows shit all over them. But, it can feel better for a while. Having your resume up to date and flying it out there usually doesn’t hurt. Don’t job hop too fast or you start to look like a risk (I stick to a 1 year minimum). But, don’t stick around trying to save a sinking company.
Along with that, remember that you don’t own the company; so, don’t let it own you. When you get to the end of your day, go the fuck home. Don’t let the business consume your personal time in actions or thoughts. If they place burns, that’s the owner’s problem, not yours. Do your best while on the clock, do try to make positive changes. But, killing yourself to make the owner just a bit richer makes no sense. The only person who is ever going to truly have your best interests in minds is you, don’t lose sight of them. Say it with me, “Fuck you, pay me”
So, where to go from here? Well, you sound like you have a good plan at the moment:
I am also looking into getting my Linux+ (currently only have my A+)
Sounds solid. If you care about security, let me recommend poking your head into the cybersecurity field. I’m am absolutely biased, but I feel it’s a fantastic field to be in right now. Following up the Linux+ with the Sec+ can be a great start and maybe the Net+. The A+, Net+, Sec+ trifecta can open a lot of doors. And you now have some IT/systems background, which I always suggest for folks (I look for 3-5 years in IT on resumes). As a lead, I get to be in on interviews and always ask questions about networking, Active Directory, email security and Linux. I don’t expect entry level analysts to know everything about all of them; but, I do expect them to be able to hold a conversation about them.
Good luck, whatever path you choose.
Not to mention many troops still have an emphasis on Christianity. Though it’s slightly less mandatory than it used to be.
Do you really want Musk starting a game console company?
It’s a dick move, but I can kinda understand why SpaceX would make it. There has been a push to “de-risk” supply chains, after the disruptions caused by Covid, Russia’s invasion of Ukranie, and other world events. This type of de-risking was partly responsible for the CHIPS and Science Act. The US Government has a strategic incentive to have a stable and resilient supply chain for semiconductors.
For SpaceX, having critical components be only available from fabs in Taiwan is a risk to business. China has been more and more vocal about it’s desire to annex Taiwan. With Trump taking office, one can imagine that the US commitment to protect Taiwan may not be quite as iron clad as it has been in the past. It’s not hard to imagine a future where China launches an invasion of Taiwan and the US does little more than shrug. At that point, any business which is solely reliant on Taiwan for semiconductors is going to see major disruptions.
So ya, it’s a complete dick move. But, I suspect SpaceX will be far from the last company looking to build a supply chain outside Taiwan.
This “transformational technology,” as he says, will “accelerate the velocity of development and unlock truly novel game experiences that will surprise, delight, and inspire players.”
Oh look, buzzword salad. Apparently though, the Netflix execs bought it. Not that I thought that Neflix has any business trying to run a game studio in the first place. But, this sounds like the same sort of bullshit which has cause many companies to burn billions of dollars on “blockchain”. I suspect this “AI driven” drivel is going to end up in the same landfill as ET and NFTs.
Fuck
Nope, this is them searching for it.
What do having sexl in a canoe and American beer have in common? It’s fucking close to water
Hey now. Those Clydesdales are doing their absolute best to piss out Bud.
War rarely decides who’s right, just who’s left.
there wouldn’t be any reason to tweak and replace it all constantly.
There really wasn’t.
There is the legal concept of Mens Rea which has to do with the mental state of the person committing the act. And I think that applies in this case. Archeology has generally been about learning and providing knowledge of previous cultures. While the methods, mindset and actions of 18th and early 19th century treasure hunters left a lot to be desired, some of them did make some reasonable attempt at documenting their finds and preserving the context to provide that knowledge. Modern archeologists go to painstaking lengths to properly document finds and preserve as much knowledge as possible from finds. Grave robbers do none of this. Their motivations generally revolve around personal gain and they will destroy any context and knowledge in their attempt to make money.
Consider your own reading on the Valley of the Kings. Where did all of the information we have on the Pharaohs in those tombs come from? It’s from the work of the archeologists documenting everything found in those tombs. While there is certainly an argument for leaving things in the same state they were found in, that also means that the artifacts will continue to deteriorate and any further knowledge which might be gleaned from them will be lost. Sending artifacts to a museum isn’t all about putting them in cases for people to gawk at. It also means that actions are taken to preserve those artifacts and maintain them for observation and study in the future. Sometimes this does cause damage. Again, 18th and early 19th century preservation was often just as, if not more damaging than leaving those artifacts in-sutu. But again, the intention was to preserve, not enrich.
So, that’s how I would draw the line, based on the reason and methods used for the removal of grave goods. Is it done with the intention for the furtherance of knoweldge of previous cultures? Or, is it just done to enrich someone? And is the work being done using the current understanding and methods to best capture and preserve that knowledge for future generations?
While I would never support it, the main way to improve online discussion is by removing anonymity. Allow me to go back a couple decades and point to John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. People with a reasonable expectation of anonymity turn into complete assholes. The common solution to this is by linking accounts to a real identity in some way, such that online actions have negative consequences to the person taking them. Google famously tried this by forcing people to use their real name on accounts. And it was a privacy nightmare. Ultimately though, it’s the only functional solution. If anti-social actions do not have negative social consequences, then there is no disincentive for people to not take those actions and people can just keep spinning up new accounts and taking those same anti-social actions. This can also be automated, resulting in the bot farms which troll and brigade online forums. On the privacy nightmare side of the coin, it means it’s much easier to target people for legitimate, though unpopular, opinions. There are some “in the middle” options, which can make the cost to creating accounts somewhat higher and slower; but, which don’t expose peoples’ real identities in quite the same way. But, every system has it’s pros and cons. And the linking of identities to accounts
Voting systems and the like will always be a kludge, which is easy to work around. Any attempt to predicate the voting on trusting users to “do the right thing” is doomed to fail. People suck, they will do what they want and ignore the rules when they feel they are justified in doing so. Or, some people will do it just to be dicks. At the same time, it also promotes herding and bubbles. If everyone in a community chooses to downvote puppies and upvote cats, eventually the puppy people will be drown out and forced to go off and found their own community which does the opposite. And those communities, both now stuck in a bias reinforcing echo chamber, will continue to drift further apart and possibly radicalize against each other. This isn’t even limited to online discussions. People often choose their meat-space friends based on similar beliefs, which leads to people living in bubbles which may not be representative to a wider world.
Despite the limitations of the kludge, I do think voting systems are the best we’re going to get. I’d agree with @grue that the Slashdot system had a lot of merit. Allowing the community to both vote on articles/comments and then later have those votes voted on by a random selection of users, seems like a reasonable way to try to enforce some of the “good faith” voting you’re looking for. Though, even that will likely get gamed and lead to herding. It’s also a lot more cumbersome and relies on the user community taking on a greater role in maintaining the community. But, as I have implied, I don’t think there is a “good” solution, only a lot of “less bad” ones.
Like many of the differences, I suspect that one came out of the attempts as English Spelling Reform, which took greater hold in the US. Ultimately, the process hasn’t succeeded, but it has excised some of inconsistencies from the English. Though, it has also led to some confusion, as in the tire/tyre case.
This article brought to you by the manufacturers of the interceptor missiles.
If we were actually in a hot war or expecting one very soon, yes we would want to ramp production like the US did during WWII. Right now, the excessive costs of wartime production should not be considered. It’s always best to remember Eisenhower’s words:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Even worse that acquisition links back to the Embracer Group. Hopefully KC:D 2 makes it out the door before Embracer full fucks up Warhorse.
You have to get out away from cities. We get them in our yard every summer and our kids run about catching them.
Yes, absolutely. There are enough issues in the world that you probably don’t know about a lot of them. And even once you are made aware of an issue, you likely don’t have enough information to form a well considered opinion. It’s also possible that you will never have enough information on an issue to have a well formed opinion. You only have so many hours in a day and, unless an issue impacts you directly, it’s quite possible that you just won’t have the time to put into it. There’s no reason to feel bad about this, the issues that are most important to me may not be the issues which are most important to you.
Very important. If you are going to have an opinion on something, you should try to have a basic understanding of the issue. You’ll never be an expert on everything; but, for issues which you truly care about, you should have at least a passing understanding of the subject matter. Also, asking questions is always good. If someone is trying to shutdown your asking questions, you should start questioning that person’s motives.
Nope. One of the big secrets of life is learning to set boundaries. Just because someone else is incredibly passionate about something doesn’t mean you need to be. Learn to tell people “fuck you and the horse that came on you”. If that bothers them, then that’s their problem, not yours. This isn’t carte blanche to be an asshole, you should still strive to be a good person and act in pro-social ways. But, it does mean that you can draw a line and not have to own everyone else’s problems all the time.