ive said this before but we have min-maxed our economy to optimize for profit. We may be entering the reaping phase of that now.

its the same reason we cant make enough artillery shells for ukraine or onshore chipmaking or build ships.

> ive said this before but we have min-maxed our economy to optimize for profit. We may be entering the reaping phase of that now.

Expanding the scope beyond the economy, one could certainly make the claim that the Age of Consequences is upon us, and that William Gibsons "Jackpot" isn't far off either. We're increasingly and collectively impacted by the fallout from decades of bad decisions.

Age of consequences, indeed.

It really does feel like we (humanity) are on the precipice of something. We're smack in the middle of an era that entire books will be written about. I really don't like thinking about the decades to come and what kind of world our grandchildren will have.

Who would imagine that optimising for profit and profit alone would result in such a fragile ecosystem?

Sorry for the sarcasm.

Boeing enters the chat

The economic consequences for doing things wrong are less than the profit made.

Until that changes, nothing else will.

I’m not even sure it’s more profitable to do things wrong it’s just easier and more advantageous for individual managers

Why is it advantageous though? Surely the behaviors of managers are incentivised by something.

CYA incentives:

If I don't install one of these system (and global IT) killing EDR systems, and I have a breach _I_ am responsible.

If my company requires it, and I install it and the entire network falls over, responsibility is passed to the EDR vendor. Everytime the EDR platform in my org kills an app, much of the reaction internally is "Oh well, at least we are protected. Let's open a support ticket."

"Security" software has been troublesome since the first AV platform was released. But the personal risk for management to not deploy it is high.

Yeah this allows outsourcing both risk and responsibility. The institutional risk that you take in exchange is acceptable because it lowers personal risk

Because the benefits are reaped well before the full cost becomes evident. By the time everything catches fire, the person responsible has retired into their Mediterranean villas and will never come back to fix what they caused.

Generally individual managers who make these decisions are acting as short sighted as companies they belong to. Along with that, Company interests and individual manager interests don't always align.

I've been plenty of places where individual manager comes up with some grand plan, implements it, gets praise and leverages into new job. Meanwhile, that plan never makes it past MVP and is massive tech debt that will weigh down the company but they don't care.

They are higher, actually, especially in this case and otherwise by definition. The problem is that most of the cost ends up externalized.

Indeed. Company should go close to bankrupty in incident like this. But CrowdStrike pays fractions.

Penalty 1: stock buybacks forbidden

Penalty 2: separate the company into two, separating financialization procedures from manufacturing ones.

Penalty 3: greenlight a union by default.

> Penalty 3: greenlight a union by default.

This should be a fundamental feature in any functioning society that expects (or wishes) to remain functional.

Penalty 2 is the same as closing the company down

No, why? If there's a company that provides actual value, why should splitting off the financialization part kill the part that provides real value? It's maybe the same as closing down the financialization part of the company, but if so, what loss to society?

The financialization (profit-making) is the only reason anyone with any power bothers to keep any of it running.

One could say that most of the companies outside U.S are non-financial

This is not about product quality.

This is marketoid head-shitting influencers selling garbage to people who have no idea what the fuck they are doing other that compliance box ticking to cover their paranoid vendor induced psychosis. They have no idea about threat modelling, no idea about how an operating system even works. Using the CIA triad, they traded off AVAILABILITY entirely, CONFIDENTIALITY partially by sending every fart a system makes to some cloud company for some false sense of INTEGRITY that the vendor does not even guarantee. In fact I've found fuck all evidence that the product actually does anything at all in a correctly layered security architecture.

This is the diametric opposite of a security proposition. A house of cards built on lies and incompetence. Literally this product is the definition of malware. It egresses data you have no control over. It has built in remote command and control that can take you out. And it runs completely arbitrary code in ring 0 (clearly written by a blind monkey)

I called this ENTIRE thing in March 2023 as a critical business risk and the above people steamrolled it. Literally I have the objections recorded and I'm going to use it at this point to steamroll them the fuck back.

It doesn't matter if it's made of shit if people buy it. It happens to be made of shit though.

I am done with this now. I am so fucking done.

It’s also the proliferation of not-really-technical people calling the shots and even developing at technical programs.

15 years ago most people in the industry actually wanted to be there except for perhaps a few exceptions.

Now it’s just like any other job with the majority of developers not giving a shit about what comes out which turns out to be shit.

I haven’t ran in to a senior or lower developer that actually bothered to test their junk in at least a few years.

Yeah it’s sad. Some companies are better than others, and it’s personally my favorite part of software engineering, but a lot of large companies cut it at the first opportunity.