4 ms·
Let me rephrase the question here, we could either spend $1m on some gobbledegook that those fast talking nerds saying we need, or we could get bigger bonuses.
by TrainedMonkey 12y ago
Let me rephrase the question here, we could either spend $1m on some gobbledegook that those fast talking nerds saying we need, or we could get bigger bonuses. We worked hard and bonuses would be tangible, when asked about how we will know if $1m expenditure a year is working fast talking nerds talk even more quicker about something that amounts to 'nothing bad will happen'.
We are arguing here from position of knowledge that guys who make these decisions likely do not have. Should they have it? Probably not, but they definitely should listen to someone who knows and who can present solid risk/cost/benefit analysis that they can understand.
- vacri 12y agoExplaining 'how it happened: because human' is not the same as 'shouldn't have to care about security'. In fact, I'd argue that those big bonuses would imply that they're professionals worth the money, and should be making more robust decisions.
- TrainedMonkey 12y agoI completely agree with you that they should know what they are doing and make robust decisions. But when you are at the top, and you tell board what is going on, and you define what it means to be a professional the line blurs. It is very easy to omit certain tail risks by simply not knowing and not taking time to know about them.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]