2 ms·

I've seen a number of creative 404 pages. A creative 500 / 503 page saying something about the tech team being on strike and served off the fronting proxy or L

by nine_k 2y ago

I've seen a number of creative 404 pages. A creative 500 / 503 page saying something about the tech team being on strike and served off the fronting proxy or LB, not the application servers, would be a cool touch.

dylan604 2y ago
Would that not qualify as a harmful sabotage though?
- nine_k 2y ago
  I don't see why would it be any more harmful as any regular strike.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Striking is not damaging the workplace in any way other than removing employees. Actively misconfiguring equipment is a dismissable offense in pretty much every situation I've ever seen. It can also be considered criminal.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      I see your point, but I don't see how that might be damaging. Deleting data would be damaging. Putting a flamboyant rant instead of the home page would be damaging. But this, to my mind, amounts closing the factory gates and writing "Strike" on them with a piece of chalk. Rolling it back would amount to commenting out a line or two in a config file, maybe even.carefully commented for that purpose.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        Deliberately making your employer's services unavailable for anything other than authorized reasons is quite simply sabotage, mischievousness, or any other thing (IANAL) that could be used to describe the act. It's not like someone make a bad configuration file that went unnoticed and pushed to the core routers to bring down the network as a mistake. This was a consciously made act to disrupt the company's services out of spite because employee didn't get something they wanted.
      - ndriscoll 2y ago
        Absent human meddling, computers tend to just chug along doing their work once set up. In fact, I would be surprised if NYT weren't under a code freeze for the event regardless of the strike. So this would be more like shutting down the automated assembly lines on the way out (knowing that they're designed to run with no human operator and are never supposed to be shut down) rather than just leaving.

by nine_k 2y ago

dylan604 2y ago

Would that not qualify as a harmful sabotage though?

nine_k 2y ago
I don't see why would it be any more harmful as any regular strike.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Striking is not damaging the workplace in any way other than removing employees. Actively misconfiguring equipment is a dismissable offense in pretty much every situation I've ever seen. It can also be considered criminal.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    I see your point, but I don't see how that might be damaging. Deleting data would be damaging. Putting a flamboyant rant instead of the home page would be damaging. But this, to my mind, amounts closing the factory gates and writing "Strike" on them with a piece of chalk. Rolling it back would amount to commenting out a line or two in a config file, maybe even.carefully commented for that purpose.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Deliberately making your employer's services unavailable for anything other than authorized reasons is quite simply sabotage, mischievousness, or any other thing (IANAL) that could be used to describe the act. It's not like someone make a bad configuration file that went unnoticed and pushed to the core routers to bring down the network as a mistake. This was a consciously made act to disrupt the company's services out of spite because employee didn't get something they wanted.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Absent human meddling, computers tend to just chug along doing their work once set up. In fact, I would be surprised if NYT weren't under a code freeze for the event regardless of the strike. So this would be more like shutting down the automated assembly lines on the way out (knowing that they're designed to run with no human operator and are never supposed to be shut down) rather than just leaving.