chestertonsgate

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   Except nobody is asking for perfection here. Every time these disasters happen, people reflexively respond to any hint of oversight with stuff like this. And yet, the cockups are always hilariously bad. It's not "oh, we found a 34
2. 2.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   Is keeping CrowdStrike around a net positive?
3. 3.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   Bug-free code is impossible. Stupid, negligent bug-free code, however, is very much doable. You just can't hire anyone who happens to be able to fog a mirror to write it.
4. 4.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   Small reminder that the law already has a way of deciding liability for damages, and you don't have to directly drop a bridge on someone to get in trouble.
5. 5.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   I hope you realize that "sowwy, there's too much code :3" will not fly with whatever government decides to regulate software after the next major cock-up. We can either grow up and set our own terms, or we can have them force
6. 6.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   Performance is dead in the trunk next to a shovel and some quicklime. I know people say they take performance seriously, but as someone who is also a user of commercial software, I am reminded of James Baldwin: "I don't believe
7. 7.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   You would not want for a sympathetic ear if you also criticized these companies. The point is not that CrowdStrike is uniquely incompetent, not at all. Every critical organization needs to be held to a higher standard, not just incompeten
8. 8.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   I'm sorry, how has CrowdStrike at all demonstrated that they're going to do better?
9. 9.▲
   by chestertonsgate 2y ago

   I'm sorry, when did the switch flip in this industry where we decided we didn't want to hire people with expertise and experience?