Re: Critics threaten...
In the circumstances, until they've finished fire-fighting, having more code thrown at them is unlikely to be welcome.
42398 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
AIUI the Peter Principle is slightly different. They get promoted up the same skill ladder until they get to a position that requires more skills than they have. The difference here is that because of not having that ladder at all the promotion is into what is into something requiring a skill set orthogonal to that which they hold.
"But in general, everyone is battening down the hatches, running light, fewer people, fewer products, core activity only, expecting more economic crap ahead"
Quite apart from geo-politics that's just positive feedback accentuating what happens. It's the way economies work. Geo-politics set the direction, boom or bust. Unfortunately those in geopolitics don't realise that.
Making the move from science to IT I was pushed out from the office to a client site in the middle of the first week because one of the two on-site staff had left to go freelance and they were afraid if they didn't fill the chair PDQ the client might not let them fill it (at least that's the explanation I got). It wasn't the project I'd been recruited for either. After a few weeks the other of the original pair also left and I was for a time the only one on site and even when someone else was added I was still the team leader. We had a visit from the account manager and twice yearly reviews in the office but that was all.
"Many managers do not get the job because they were good at doing what their subordinates are now doing."
I'm not sure about this one. ISTM that people get promoted to management because there is no technical promotion ladder. It becomes the only way of rewarding them for technical achievement - by transferring them to a job which has different technical requirements that they don't necessarily have. It's like promoting a chemist to accounts because they're a good chemist (or vice versa). It ends up with the work being done by those who are too inexperienced or inept at it to be promoted to management and managed by those who would do the job better but have no competence at management. No wonder we refer to them as "manglement".
Just in case somebody is still reading this thread (been on holiday for a while):
the user id is a mobile phone number
FTFY
If you look at their video of setting things up you can use a burner phone to set up Signal on a computer which is the recommendation if you're security consious. It's only the mobile number if you use it on a phone. Yes, a phone is convenient. It's the old trade-off - why by secure when you can use something convenient?
It's all very well having small program executables but ultimately it's the data that matters. Take, for instance, your favourite small browser. It has access to the full whack of the web (give or take those sites too smart for their own good that will only work with their developers' favoured release of Chrome or whatever it may be).
If you want to house a lot of data then it's going to be a server that can handle all it. If a lot of people will need access at once it's going to need a lot of throughput. If the people are in more than one location it's going to need secure connectivity. It's starting to look awfully like a cloud. The easier question is to make damn sure you know whose computer it's on that relying on providing that yourself. This aged techy - closer to the no hair than the merely grey - has reached the point where NextCloud on a 3rd party server (no doubt a VM) run by someone I can trust is a better solution for a local charity than doing it myself.
Of course dealing with national sovereignty the issues are bigger as are the complexity of the requirements. But so are the resources available to ensure it's handled by someone who can be trusted. That's the case irrespective of whether it's done in house or not. What's really important to realising that it's necessary to have someone who can be trusted, whether you can trust those currently doing it and how urgent it it to make your mind up about it and act if you decide they aren't.
Still smarting because you haven't got a Civil Service job with what you imagine its pension scheme to be. It's not surprising as you seem unaware that policy is for politicians. Civil Servants can advise but if the politician goes against the advice then there's nothing they can do about it.
"It's a good tactic for them to use since most gmail punters store all of their email on google and never back it up."
Most gmail addresses I've encountered only use to send spam.
But, yes, if you value your email why would you store the only copy on somebody else's computer? Of course that applies to ISP email and whatever MS calls their mail service these days.
"That's the reason I still run my own email server."
For similar reasons I use an MSP where I can do more or less the same thing. I tend to issue a new address for such purposes and bounce with a messages saying why if they start to abuse it and then delete it. For offenders such as booking.com who I may need to use occasionally it just stays there with the bounce filter on it until I need to use them. Then it's temporarily removed.
"Roux zeros in on Identity and Access Management (IAM). The US dominates enterprise deployments with few exceptions."
Are such outsourced services one of the frequent sources of breaches?
In any event I'd have thought that it would be seen as one of the key requirements for sovereignty - literally. It that's open to foreign interference there seems to be little point in the rest.
we could only ever feature four stories "above the fold," and none of them could be our newest
Above the fold? So that's what that useless block was called. Just getting rid of it entirely, "fold" and all and leaving everything else as-was would have been a good makeover. What we've got is a prime example of solving the wrong problem.
Landscape on a monitor but I usually set the browser window to about a quarter of the screen at which the content is a few words wide. And on my favoured browser - and most others - the comment link isn't displayed - just a load of links to social media crap. I wondered if that was where we were expected to comment.
Worse still, TFA doesn't mention the incident whereby a Github patch labelled commits as being co-authored by Coprolite irrespective of whether that was the case as not. It was only fixed after being caught by the usual MS beta testers - the users. In the meantime a stack of commits are left as being wrongly claimed.