Your personal health information is information that pertains to you and you only. Your compensation is part of a contract between yourself and your employer, hence why both parties have to sign it, and why both parties have ownership over it.
Not arguing that payroll information can't be protected, my only point was that your comparison was off.
I'm not saying it is currently the case that I own my compensation number, I'm saying it's not impossible to imagine creating regulation to make that happen.
If your company causes damage at society-scale (hell, even if it does major damage to one person's life), the state should be ready to intervene and make the company pay the tab for the damage they caused? Like, that doesn't sound very controversial.
Yea. Their contracts likely have clauses for all of that. I say likely, but we already know this is true because it's come out.
The thing is, crowdstrike isn't the only incompetent party here. Many major companies (looking at Delta) probably made it worse for themselves with a very poor response after.
So should crowdstrike pay beyond a reasonable measure because of Delta's poor response?
No contract clause can protect you from a gross negligence tort.
(Or equivalent in one's respective civil law system.)
This might be the easiest gross negligence tort case to show and litigate-- still hard but if everyone starts the lawsuits they can not pull the contract to protect them. They will try of course and they will fail in most but the obvious cases.
What you can not sue them for is not forseeable damages -- e.g. I lost my dream job because the computer died during the interview. But ceasing operations of a company is generally fair game. And plaintiffs can argue that no reasonable person could forsee and mitigate against this disaster so the failure is not due to plaintiff's "fault" negligence.
Reckless typically requires conscious disregard of risk. Arguably, that would require Crowdstrike emails from programmers saying “this is risky, we need to test it” and management responding “F it! We’ll do it live!”
If nobody in CS realized how dangerous their process was, it’s not reckless.
That's interesting but my sniff test isn't passing. "Reckless driving" doesn't require me to know it's a bad idea to do 100 miles per hour in a 25, it is reckless whether I realize it or not right? IANAL but the only thing I can think of requiring knowing to be at fault is slander, at least in the USA.
Strangely (or maybe not?), we stumbled across Lapham's Quarterly in MAKEMAKECOFFEE next to Surrey Quays station. Also their coffee is amazing, so two reasons to go out of your way :)
Edit: that was more than a year ago, though, so I'm not sure if they still carry it, but I'd hope so.
> A thousand dollars a month? Please, that's enough to pay for a lot of education like you wouldn't believe.
Alas, it would probably not be. People like to compare apples and oranges in discussions like this. UBI is such a game-changer that we probably wouldn't be able to predict how prices would react once such a thing is enacted. Look at the pandemic stimulus worldwide, and the inflation since.
If a lot of people had more money on hand, they would: 1) want to spend it; 2) prefer to work less (on average) so they have more time to enjoy spending it. Both of those lead to inflationary pressure, so it's unlikely $1000 in the new system would get you anything near what you currently get with it.
> None of the other low cost airlines are this bad.
Have you heard of WizzAir? They're the only airline that have a flight landing close to my parent's city, so I have to fly with them to avoid an extra car ride that's as long as the flight.
They have this thing where, if they detect you searching for flights repeatedly from the same account / device, they impose an "administrative fee" for each passanger, for each flight, because presumably you're a robot. There is no way to get rid of said fee, unless you call them (for £1.5 per minute or so), and even that might take ages. And this isn't like £0.5, it's £8 per person, per flight.
I can only hope they go bankrupt and someone else takes that flight slot.
> or even worse - can't see about ourselves that insult us
Isn't this the point of the previous comment? That the WN thinks they're not out of their depth and can't see that about themselves. So it is an insult from that perspective.
First time I became aware of dovecotes was on a trip to Egypt, when we were trying to figure out what the weirdly shaped buildings were. Here's another Atlas Obscura article about them:
Kinda off-topic but it took me awhile to realise what those were in AC Origins. They went for a fair amount of detail in the minute parts of the countryside.
Yes, fast-growing companies can grow out of my preference zone and as other commenters said, jumping ship when that happens may be the correct way to go.
There are other issues with slow-growing or not-growing companies. When the company is not growing, people are incentivized to take a zero-sum approach to their work relationships. If the pie is not growing, you need to guard your own slice and take from others. This creates a toxic environment. If the company is growing, then collaborating on growing the pie can become the shared attitude.
Slow growth and no growth companies tend to be under a lot of pressure for cost-optimization (which makes sense in a lot of ways, but is grueling to live through…)
As a maintainer of a security-oriented open source library, the paranoia of "is this person trying to help or to exploit?" weighs down on me every time I have to read a PR (EDIT: even though the libraries are by no means as widely used), regardless of whether it's from a long-time contributor or someone new. I think accepting a slower pace of development is the only viable solution (as I'm not interested in making these libraries my full-time job), but that comes with the same feelings reflected in the article listed.
If there was a simple way of advertising the need for help to a community of experts that I/we could trust, I'd take that any day.
> As a maintainer of a security-oriented open source library, the paranoia of "is this person trying to help or to exploit?"
That's an excellent mind set when reviewing code, no matter security or not. But especially for security. How could this be wrong? What are the corner cases? How could anyboy break this? What do we need to test? That kind of scrutiny is crucial for keeping the quality of your code base high, no matter who posts the PR.
Yes but that's a huge amount of work, and is not the 'fun' part of coding. It's one thing to have to spend those cycles looking for errors or incompetence, and hopefully helping the contributor improve their skills so they can in turn help the project more in the future. It's quite another to spend even more energy being suspicious and looking for subterfuge from someone that has been one of your most helpful contributors.
I agree, I've read/heard this quite a few times, I'll continue to do it, apologies to whomever might suffer at my hands/words because of it.
I find it a lot easier to empathise with things that I've experienced, and it feels natural to me to share that. It would also console me better if someone "related to me", for example, sharing a few words about a common experience. Given that I don't think I'm too deviant, I'll assume enough other people would feel the same.
If I know someone else prefers a different approach I am probably able to deploy reason and correct course.
I too like the "sharing a few words about a common experience" approach (without hijacking the conversation). It's nice to know that the other person has better chances to actually understand for real :-)
Not arguing that payroll information can't be protected, my only point was that your comparison was off.
reply