4 ms·

> Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement. One of the cornerstones of their entire industry accounting fo

> Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement. One of the cornerstones of their entire industry accounting for the uncertainty of the future. They're already risking their jobs (and, indeed, their companies) every day. Contrast that with a statistically insignificant number of false accusations. If they are truly afraid of false accusations (like they say) rather than true accusations, then they haven't clearly done the math. (If, on the other hand, they're afraid of true accusations, they should proactively cease to sexually harass women and maybe they'll have a less guilty conscience.) I'm not imposing a macho-requirement on anyone, just asking that they exercise some sense of consistency here.

buboard 8y ago
i think you got it wrong. they are not risking their jobs, they are risking other people's money.
mikelyons 8y ago
You should take the time to learn why your argument is so flaccid and insubstantial.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
You're looking at this with statistical, risk management. There's a subset of risk management that focused on what's called "catastrophic," risk management. That's when the impact of the event, which is rare but can happen, is so high that one is willing to go the extra mile to prevent it. This includes obvious examples like nuclear powerplants having ridiculous security or classified systems being air gapped with dedicated, physical lines. However, there's less-obvious cases where the same thinking is employed: One company's head of security at WTC started doing evacuation drills after the 1990's bombing thinking something destructive to whole building is worth having a plan for. He said all but 5 people got out in 2001. In same place, a bank was running OpenVMS clusters on high-quality hardware with a far-away site in case something happened to the building (standard concern, too). They claimed those nodes were the last thing that failed with no transactions lost. Everything else was destroyed. People often consider hurricanes, tornados, flood levels, wild fires, and earthquakes before moving into an area. Lots of folks avoid Tornado Alley and the Southern/Southeastern Coast for that reason. One person thinking floods might get bad in Texas put an inflatable, rubber circle filled with water around their house. It was only one floodwaters went around instead of through. Likewise, the Hurricane Architecture article said author [statistically-unnecessarily] went with dedicated servers and architecture for super-high volume. Became main source for news during flood for entire state with tons of traffic. Kept folks informed. Lots of people either don't put political/religious/relationship/work information social media or periodically delete it to make digging up previous dirt on them harder. It either takes no effort (former) or small effort (latter). The endless volume of folks getting quoted before being slammed online or being fired at work suggests this is a rational practice. Also, as Schneier says about crypto, the number and effectiveness of such attacks seem to go up overtime where traditional, risk assessment is nearly impossible. Certain appliances, like toasters and tumble dryers, cause a disproportionate amount of homes to be destroyed. Many homeowners make sure they're only used when someone is there to react to damage. For toasters, some people also unplug them when not in use (idk if that matters). At least "person is there" is a costless precaution that prevent loss of entire home. Another which is sometimes labeled discrimination is folks staying out of the hood to avoid being violently assaulted. There's quite a few hoods in Memphis, TN near me. Most people, regardless of race or gender, avoid them if they can since they don't want to be mugged, raped, beaten, or killed. When weighing that, people consider the psychological effect it would have on them. If they don't live there, the choice is (a) go meet people, do stuff, etc where I almost certainly won't experience violence or (b) go do same stuff where said violence is reported (or not) several times a day in those same places. Most people, again all groups, do (a) to avoid cost of (b) since it's never worth it to them. Some do (b), though, for a variety of reasons. Just saying it to acknowledge they exist. In the main article, these are rational, successful people are similarly facing a catastrophic risk that's got an entire movement behind the tools that make it work. They don't know odds of it happening but do know the cost is end-of-career and frequency is increasing. They are rightly thinking in terms of catastrophic, risk mitigation where the entire class of risk is mitigated since the cost is unbearable. Although I disagree on specifics, they're definitely right to mitigate a catastrophic risk increasing in frequency. It's what they usually do. Me too.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  This is the most insightful response I've received this entire thread. Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that women are viewed as potential catastrophes. That's probably just where we're at with identity politics these days.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    Thanks! It's not a good situation. I don't think it's identity politics so much as specific practices that leverage media, corporate and viral social, to severely punish people for alleged crimes without evidence other than presence and claims of a woman. Another commenter described it like a superweapon that women can use against men working with women. If folks are using a superweapon and it only works on men working with women, then the mere existence of it will lead to men aiming for prevention to remove the circumstance that gives the superweapon power: women's presence. I'd rather the superweapon not exist or be used only based on stronger evidence given its catastrophic effects. Otherwise, we're back to men wanting control over their lives/careers minimizing catastrophes by treating women as potential catastrophes. If not in general, then they'll do it for private or couple-looking meetings with them. As we're seeing.

buboard 8y ago

i think you got it wrong. they are not risking their jobs, they are risking other people's money.

mikelyons 8y ago

You should take the time to learn why your argument is so flaccid and insubstantial.

nickpsecurity 8y ago

You're looking at this with statistical, risk management. There's a subset of risk management that focused on what's called "catastrophic," risk management. That's when the impact of the event, which is rare but can happen, is so high that one is willing to go the extra mile to prevent it. This includes obvious examples like nuclear powerplants having ridiculous security or classified systems being air gapped with dedicated, physical lines. However, there's less-obvious cases where the same thinking is employed: One company's head of security at WTC started doing evacuation drills after the 1990's bombing thinking something destructive to whole building is worth having a plan for. He said all but 5 people got out in 2001. In same place, a bank was running OpenVMS clusters on high-quality hardware with a far-away site in case something happened to the building (standard concern, too). They claimed those nodes were the last thing that failed with no transactions lost. Everything else was destroyed. People often consider hurricanes, tornados, flood levels, wild fires, and earthquakes before moving into an area. Lots of folks avoid Tornado Alley and the Southern/Southeastern Coast for that reason. One person thinking floods might get bad in Texas put an inflatable, rubber circle filled with water around their house. It was only one floodwaters went around instead of through. Likewise, the Hurricane Architecture article said author [statistically-unnecessarily] went with dedicated servers and architecture for super-high volume. Became main source for news during flood for entire state with tons of traffic. Kept folks informed. Lots of people either don't put political/religious/relationship/work information social media or periodically delete it to make digging up previous dirt on them harder. It either takes no effort (former) or small effort (latter). The endless volume of folks getting quoted before being slammed online or being fired at work suggests this is a rational practice. Also, as Schneier says about crypto, the number and effectiveness of such attacks seem to go up overtime where traditional, risk assessment is nearly impossible. Certain appliances, like toasters and tumble dryers, cause a disproportionate amount of homes to be destroyed. Many homeowners make sure they're only used when someone is there to react to damage. For toasters, some people also unplug them when not in use (idk if that matters). At least "person is there" is a costless precaution that prevent loss of entire home. Another which is sometimes labeled discrimination is folks staying out of the hood to avoid being violently assaulted. There's quite a few hoods in Memphis, TN near me. Most people, regardless of race or gender, avoid them if they can since they don't want to be mugged, raped, beaten, or killed. When weighing that, people consider the psychological effect it would have on them. If they don't live there, the choice is (a) go meet people, do stuff, etc where I almost certainly won't experience violence or (b) go do same stuff where said violence is reported (or not) several times a day in those same places. Most people, again all groups, do (a) to avoid cost of (b) since it's never worth it to them. Some do (b), though, for a variety of reasons. Just saying it to acknowledge they exist. In the main article, these are rational, successful people are similarly facing a catastrophic risk that's got an entire movement behind the tools that make it work. They don't know odds of it happening but do know the cost is end-of-career and frequency is increasing. They are rightly thinking in terms of catastrophic, risk mitigation where the entire class of risk is mitigated since the cost is unbearable. Although I disagree on specifics, they're definitely right to mitigate a catastrophic risk increasing in frequency. It's what they usually do. Me too.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
This is the most insightful response I've received this entire thread. Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that women are viewed as potential catastrophes. That's probably just where we're at with identity politics these days.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Thanks! It's not a good situation. I don't think it's identity politics so much as specific practices that leverage media, corporate and viral social, to severely punish people for alleged crimes without evidence other than presence and claims of a woman. Another commenter described it like a superweapon that women can use against men working with women. If folks are using a superweapon and it only works on men working with women, then the mere existence of it will lead to men aiming for prevention to remove the circumstance that gives the superweapon power: women's presence. I'd rather the superweapon not exist or be used only based on stronger evidence given its catastrophic effects. Otherwise, we're back to men wanting control over their lives/careers minimizing catastrophes by treating women as potential catastrophes. If not in general, then they'll do it for private or couple-looking meetings with them. As we're seeing.