jhelphenstine

I couldn’t disagree more - the compass bearing for parents ought never be “go with the flow”; that’s akin to “don’t decide, slide”. In both, I hear advocacy for abdicating the highest of responsibilities.

I remember the map “V-TEC paintball” as a forerunner of the DotA and LOL styles - endless waves with you the (battlecruiser | marine | ghost) running around making the difference. HotS, LOL, DotA all seem to trace back to those “paintball” custom maps and the creators who made terrific use of the tools on offer.

Missing in discussions about the US military recruiting problem is a discussion of the shift away from 20 year defined benefit pensions to the “Blended Retirement System.” When such a terrific deal slides off the table, economic incentives shift accordingly.

Parent here. In our PTA (parent teacher association) group, someone held forth that we just needed a temporary closure to “flatten the curve”. I had flashbacks to 2020.

Vaccines are widely available for children and adults. I think pondering transitions to virtual class, where students are virtually attending school in the more flippant sense of the word “virtual”, is overweighting risks of the ‘rona and sorely underweighting risks to childrens’ development, to say nothing of the economic toll for parents pulled aside (if they can be, as in this article).

Alternately: sounds like the point about adversarial relations stands; a more collaborative culture prioritizing the success of the business (the collective interest) might have yielded a less expensive reboot.

S/UI/clothing; your argument suggests the move to add color to fabric doesn’t make sense because it is simply fashion and has aught to do with the interface presented by a shirt. I think the parent comment nails it on subjectivity; the form of a thing is as much a part as its function. The luxury goods industry attests as much.

They are, however, informed by experiences in uniform.

Veritatem Dilex ("I delight in the truth")

Truth _is_. I strive to find more accurate forms to know it by.

One single intelligence agency? And what if the Germans are interested in gaining better understanding of Viktor Orban? Or if the Italians want to know just how far Germany will really go to help them financially? An intelligence agency is a means of acquiring answers to intelligence needs - I'm not sure Europe is of one mind with regard to what questions merit answering.

“If you’re being blackmailed...” does sound like a matter for legal redress, but it ought not suffice as a guard against a company backed by Alphabet’s resources taking action. While your argument is technically sound, the consequences of inaction by YouTube can exit the sterile world of bits and bytes and bring real pain.

I think you've got a witty metaphor here, but after mulling it over:

Doesn't CI rely on robust testing to ensure buggy software doesn't make it into production? I'm not sure the fire-and-forget of the 24/7 news cycle lends itself to a comparison to continuous deployment, as there is a strong bias to 'deliver now' given competition to break the news first, and it's hard to build in 'automated testing' (vetting?) of content.

After reviewing the summary, full text, and the article, I also missed the authorization for tracking browser history without a warrant.

After making the claim, the article mostly seems an opinion piece; there doesn't seem to be a substantiation of the lede.

As an aside, Cybernews is a new resource to me; while the author of the article seems a well-established technology writer, Cybernews itself is absent a masthead. All I could discern is that it's governed by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania; not much else to go on wrt their values, opinion stance, etc.

>...that security compliance has become a make-work field for the unskilled, whose role is to be both an easy mark and a scapegoat for reckless corporate behaviour.

I like the cut of your gib, sir.

>It's %90 an exposition vehicle for displaying how esoterically knowledgeable the practitioners are about hacker trivia and jargon, and from a business perspective, it's just kids playing in the sandbox that produce the compliance artifacts you want to get your project approved. Geeks get to geek, and project managers get their amber status risk, and when Equifax/OPM/LifeLabs happens, everyone says it wasn't foreseeable because they were "compliant." The frameworks externalize risk into models that are divorced from reality, which hides it, and that's why institutions buy into them. I'd say they're the collateralized debt obligations of engineering.

I think these risk models are part of a mutually-agreed kabuki illusion. It's hard work to assume prudent risk, to identify hazards specific to an organization's objectives, devise appropriate controls, etc. These frameworks offer a solution: if "industry groups" agree to hold them as valid, then it's like you say -- project managers get their amber risk status, and the large scale breaches are simply "Who could've known?" events, where lessons learned are drafted, reports are produced, commitments are made, and life moves on. Building up the compliance industry - and I'd add no small part of the cybersecurity industry, tier 1 SOC personnel, etc - seems to be me to be creating a class of worker ripe for having the floor yanked out from under them in a recession. It's cost-center work, but it's marketed as 'cutting edge skills for the burgeoning cybersecurity industry'. What's the revenue generated, or costs cut, by monitoring those dashboards with human eyeballs?

Where can I read more about early identification of this risk by the UK govt?