5C5C5C

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 61 points 7 months ago (48 children)

You're making a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent where you're assuming that just because the backdoor was caught under these particular conditions, these are the only conditions under which it would've been caught.

Suppose the bad actor had not been sloppy; it would still be entirely possible that the backdoor gets identified and fixed during a security audit performed by an enterprise grade Linux distribution.

In this case it was caught especially early because the bad actor did not cover their tracks very well, but now that that has occurred, it cannot necessarily be proven one way or the other whether the backdoor would have been caught by other means.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The fact that it was discovered early due to bad actor sloppiness does not imply that it could not have also been caught prior to wide spread usage via security audits that take place for many enterprise grade Linux distributions.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Personally I suspect they're getting all the information they care about via subpoenas on big data and social media companies. They don't have a need to compromise security on a technical level anymore because the justice system itself is compromised. That means backdoors only benefit national enemies at this point, so the NSA of today would rather those not exist at all.

Of course that's not to say anyone should trust those agencies at their word on anything.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (5 children)

(On a more serious note, if this is happening to you then you're not following the instructions to clean the device and replace the filter once a month.)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago

You have a talent for metaphor.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

You're right, he was there since 2009, so he has probably been helping to design the cannibalization, but it certainly didn't begin with him.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

By all credible accounts the systemic issues at Boeing predate this CEO by probably 2 decades. Dave Calhoun seems to specialize in "troubled companies", i.e. he has never been anything more than a professional scape goat.

Edit: I didn't do enough research, he hasn't really been CEO at many places, just upper positions like director and board member. Still, the companies he specializes in seem to be the ones with reputations to cannibalize for money by cutting quality and screwing consumers, like GE.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And you HAVE TO eat it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Congratulations, you're halfway there! Just two more times and you'll never catch it again 😁

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Beyond personal safety concerns, I want to boycott Boeing whole sale. Make the whole brand toxic to airlines, period. Make airlines decide that they lose too much business to their use of Boeing to ever use their planes again. If Boeing doesn't totally collapse, other airplane makers will eventually follow their example.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The overwhelming cost in these projects is always engineering salaries. These companies are making the calculation that they can throw shit (rockets) at the wall (into space) carelessly to save money by wasting more material to avoid paying the salaries of people that could think through the design more carefully and come up with something that will have a reasonable probability of working the first time.

And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

Add this to the insurmountable pile of things we should theoretically regulate but never will because of regulatory capture.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

And money is the only cost that matters, right? Let's not be concerned about the material waste involved in the launch or the pollution that's building up in outer space with each failure.

This kind of business oriented mindset is why Boeing planes are falling out of the sky and dropping their bolts.

Also the cost being cited for those early space programs involved an immense amount of breakthrough R&D which the newer programs ought to be benefiting from; there's no reason to believe that a government program doing the same work as these private companies today would cost as much as they did in the early days. It's not even a meaningful quantitative comparison in the first place.

view more: ‹ prev next ›