Here's the thing. While most people on HN tend to be in the global top performers when it comes to IT, the vast majority of businesses are simply ripe, low hanging fruit just waiting to be breached, and almost every time it is because of a failure of management to understand the importance of those things. Way too many 60 year old men who barely know how to use a computer are at the top of orgs, and are stuck in the janitorial cost sink fallacy of IT. I also put a lot of this on the heads of IT directors or senior sysadmins, who are failing to convey the importance of the matter to those C-levels in terms they understand.

I have learned this the hard way, having started up an MSP at one point and done a lot of contracting to help orgs unfuck their infra, I have seen it all first hand, from 5-30 person lawfirms to fortune 500 oil companies to unicorn startups. I have been the senior sysadmin who failed to convey things in a way the got through C-level thick skulls, and most of my career trajectory has been angled towards keeping up with the sysadmin transition to devops while learning how to fill that gap so I don't repeat those mistakes. I've failed multiple times, but each one is a lesson I learn from and try to apply to the next place, and sometimes C-levels literally just don't care and can't be reached, and nothing happens till a major breach or lawsuit costs lots of money.

To me, this is the importance of the CTO/CIO roles. The problem is, again, the vast majority of America isn't SV. I would say ~%80 of companies I saw didn't even have those roles, and if they had someone in that role but without the title (like IT director), they often didn't have a seat on the board or any real influence with the C's. I have also seen those roles taken by people who should be in other positions but enjoy the "C" title too much, to the detriment of the org.

Sorry, this got kind of ranty, but it's an issue I obsess over in trying to find better solutions for. Basically I'm learning how to hack management instead of computers these days.

> I also put a lot of this on the heads of IT directors or senior sysadmins, who are failing to convey the importance of the matter to those C-levels in terms they understand.

Why? Understanding the risks involved before making a decision is the responsibility of executives. If they calculate that the risks are minimal and crackers prove them wrong by causing damage to the tune of millions, they have only themselves to blame.

How many times have people explained the need for things to be done properly, only for proper infrastructure to be written off as too costly and unnecessary? The fact is they are taking a calculated risk: they get to spend less on information security by assuming nothing bad will happen. Claiming that it's the fault of system administrators is just yet another power move: scapegoating in order to avoid responsibility.

They make the decisions and should face the consequences.

I'm torn on this one, because for years I took your position... but there were numerable times I saw directors/seniors fail to convey that information in an understandable way when the C's might have been open to it when presented differently. There are certain cases were the C's don't listen at all, and theres not much that can be done, but there are also cases where the C's just haven't been presented the information properly.

This is why I am increasingly putting importance on the skills of the Director or CTO/CIO position, because they need to be the kind of person who can handle the board/meeting room but still understand the tech enough to a) not be fooled or lied to and b) understand the real business risks and weigh them properly while overseeing the implementation of solutions.

So I understand and am sympathetic to your point, but I think there is a lot more nuance there. Yes, ultimately the buck stops at the C's, but as the sysadmin who has failed to talk to them well, I still feel like we could do a much better job on our end. This is why I think a lot of more senior devs/ops types of people could do extremely well in the C positions if they got their MBA and had a C-level mentor. Trying to do the opposite, where you try to tech-ize a traditional MBA C-type fails much more often in my opinion, but, that's who dominates those positions. I see market opportunity!

>> (don't really get it -- tbh,rich people bad/corrupt?)

it's not so much that wealth is bad, but tax evasion and money laundering (from organized crime, corruption, etc.) is bad.

The future of the species is literally imperiled right now because we've allowed rich people to hoard wealth, so that's a reason to care.

Really? I thought governments had a lot more, like trillions more. I thought the quality of life for humanity has never been better than now? Do you mean climate change? If so how does rich people's greed fit in the picture.

I don't think they should hoard cash, there should be a limit on that but net worth usually includea stock value, wealth in form of stocks is far from hoarding. I think cash wealth limits and a legal limit on pay gap would help but I still don't see the rich do anything they haven't done throughout history. If anything, democraric processes and institutions are failing the people.

You must be rich to talk like that. Rich people generally emit a f#ckton of co2 and worse, they do not use their wealth to try to mitigate it, thereby condemning their own children.

Not rich, not poor.

You're generalizing and stereotyping. If what you say is true then it seems your law makers are failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people?

People can do anything legal with their money, if it shouldn't be allowed why is it legal? It seems you're taking a morao high ground against the rich, which is fine so long as you realize rich people are not above the law and even if they control civilian governments they don't control the military (at least not at non-admin levels) so democratic societies still have a lot of power. You also have to consider how just india and china generate emissions that eclipse the US but most billionaires are in the US. So it might feel nice to blame the rich and please don't let me get in the way but I don't see how fixing wealth inequality even makes a small dent on climate change. Mind you, publicly traded corps benefit the rich but their policy making is entirely designed to benefit shareholders as a whole.

I don't care who is to blame,show me solutions not a person to blame.

Oh yes, they are failing, and I can explain you why. We are in a deadlock in my country regarding elected representatives because the baby boomers vote and they are in greater number than us youngs, so the policy will always be conservative and economically liberal. Basically old conservatives control our future even if they have less life remaining than us on this Earth. (That's how I conceived a new democratic process by the way - amount of votes = number of years remaining in your life expectancy. Maybe a first solution offered to you to give younglings a chance about their future ?). Democracies do have power, but they lack a lot of will.

Add to that lobbies and economic agents controlling elected officials so they keep believing in the eternal growth lullaby, and yes - they ARE failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people/powerful corporations. I really don't see how that's surprising or subject to debate - everything observable around us is in favor of this argument.

I'm not taking a moral high ground, the problem is systemic and I don't accuse anyone in particular. Rich people, not above the law ? Yeah... I won't answer that because I don't believe it to be true, but I cannot formally prove it.

Oh we do have solutions but you wouldn't like those. Carbon taxes, unlawful to eat meat besides on weekends, mandatory carbon offset of long-distance and/or plane trips, unlawful to advertise in public spaces and I have a whole lot more for you - but they will never get implemented ;)

oh, so it's all the global poor who are coordinating their efforts to reduce emissions of companies they don't own or operate?

thanks for clearing that up!

The global poor don't get to choose. When the choice is firewood or not being able to cook and stay warm, you use firewood.

When the choice is find some way to stay entertained without taking quarterly vacations on CO2 generating flights to expensive getaways or keep polluting somehow no one bats an eyelid.

There aren't enough rich people to compete with commercial airliner's emissions. Cruise ships are HUGE emittors(they even get around emissions control laws) for example but the western middle class is their user not the rich or poor.

You realize the first-world middle class taking cruises is as much a part of the rich as billionaires right?

A yearly salary of something like 32k puts you in the global 1% of earners. I won't be so strict about the definition of the rich, but families having money for cruises are definitely part of the demographic I'm speaking to.

And I mean, vacations is are just the tip of the iceberg, those people so poor they have to use firewood go survive, aren't the reason we have so many commercial airliners shuttling around goods so we can have the latest throwaway item we desire in 48hrs or less.

Being the global 1% earner means nothing in this context. Income is measured against context of currency. A USD can indeed buy a lot but perhaps housing is a lot cheaper in subsaharan africa than Manhattan? Same for food and other expenses? Regardless of their place in the world, being rich is only significant to how much expendible money you have left after accounting for neccessities. Even in america, $80k/yr can mean you're doing great if you live in some no name suburb or small town but you're lucky if you break even with that in NYC.

Your firewood analogies are sensetionalist but do not answer my question of how even if western civilization vanished over night climate change would be resolved? Perhaps delayed by a few decades. I would even say it might get worse due to undeveloped countries desire to compete with minimal costs and inability to create nuclear power or afford wind turbine farms,solar,etc... When oil,charcol and old cars are already affordable.

You spent a whole paragraph arguing a point invalidated in the next sentence when I point out I'm not using the 1% criteria, but rather the fact you have enough disposable income for a cruise (yes, financing it counts)

And my firewood "analogy" is sensationalist?

Is that a joke or are you just that out of touch with the reality of the actual poor.

My parents grew up in those conditions, and even as recently as the last few years we've had family members back home in that situation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.h...

-

Your second paragraph is non sequitur. You didn't ask that question or even imply it!

If your point of your screed there is climate change is not worth fighting, it's not a unique viewpoint.

What a terrible thing if we were to come up with less polluting ways of living for no real benefit huh?

Goverments are more accountable than rich individuals.

Elon Musk is a great example of how consolidated wealth an individual has can have a large impact on outcomes.

It's not all bad news, but there are things going on with consolidated wealth that are very concerning right now.

> privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful