Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.online/users/Infrogmation/statuses/112824607734944433">Infrogmation (infrogmation@mastodon.online)'s status on Monday, 22-Jul-2024 01:53:24 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.online/@Infrogmation" title="infrogmation@mastodon.online"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/153581-48-20231020093041.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Infrogmation" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Infrogmation</a></section><article><p>Ian Muir explains the context for the Crowdstrike Microsoft disaster.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/3407855#notice-6702847">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-07-22T01:53:24+09:00" title="Monday, 22-Jul-2024 01:53:24 JST">about a year ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.online/@Infrogmation/112824607734944433" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.online via ActivityPub">mastodon.online</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.online/@Infrogmation/112824607734944433">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2937952">Facebook post by Ian Muir 19 July 2024:OK, I will answer here in a group since a lot of non tech friends have asked me. Lots of stuff broke today because a company called Crowdstrike released a bad piece of software that a lot of systems rely on. Here are some answers to common questions people have asked me.
Edit: One note for people who think I'm being dramatic here and that this was all just an accident. This whole thing happened before at a smaller scale with McAffee in 2010. The CTO of McAffee at the time was Crowdstrike's current CEO. This isn't a coincidence, it's a pattern.
Why wasn't the update tested better? Because tech people are expensive and Crowdstrike laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including testers. Testing is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that testing is important because it doesn't "make them money".
Why didn't big tech companies have a way to function without this one piece of software?  Because tech people are expensive and big tech comapnies laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including the people who help make things stable and flexible. Flexibility is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that flexibility is important because it doesn't "make them money".</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/681/416/890/original/cb37b810fa660053.png" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/681/416/890/original/cb37b810fa660053.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2937953">facebook post by Ian Muir text continues:Why didn't airlines, governments, telecom companies, and other business have a backup plan?  Because tech people are expensive and many companies laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including the people who research and implement backup plans. Backup plans are expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that backup plans are important because they doesn't "make them money".
Wait a minute. How many of these critical systems in tech, transportation, government, and infrastructure are short staffed right now? Pretty much all of them. Good luck.
Wait a minute, all of these people who laid off all the tech workers said they were replaced by AI. What happened? AI was just a bullshit justification to lay off expensive tech people. AI hasn't really replaced many people in tech because making major changes like shifting to AI is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader to spend money on making changes when they can just fake it because their compensation is affected more by how many tech people they can lay off than how well the companies actually function. Someday, AI might replace a lot of people in tech, but right now most of the jobs were not replaced by AI and were likely just closed or sent overseas.</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/731/649/781/original/46f0846a2111359a.png" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/731/649/781/original/46f0846a2111359a.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Infrogmation (infrogmation@mastodon.online)'s status on Monday, 22-Jul-2024 01:53:24 JST Infrogmation
Ian Muir explains the context for the Crowdstrike Microsoft disaster.
In conversationabout a year ago from mastodon.onlinepermalink
Attachments
1. Facebook post by Ian Muir 19 July 2024: OK, I will answer here in a group since a lot of non tech friends have asked me. Lots of stuff broke today because a company called Crowdstrike released a bad piece of software that a lot of systems rely on. Here are some answers to common questions people have asked me. Edit: One note for people who think I'm being dramatic here and that this was all just an accident. This whole thing happened before at a smaller scale with McAffee in 2010. The CTO of McAffee at the time was Crowdstrike's current CEO. This isn't a coincidence, it's a pattern. Why wasn't the update tested better? Because tech people are expensive and Crowdstrike laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including testers. Testing is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that testing is important because it doesn't "make them money". Why didn't big tech companies have a way to function without this one piece of software? Because tech people are expensive and big tech comapnies laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including the people who help make things stable and flexible. Flexibility is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that flexibility is important because it doesn't "make them money".
  https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/681/416/890/original/cb37b810fa660053.png
2. facebook post by Ian Muir text continues: Why didn't airlines, governments, telecom companies, and other business have a backup plan? Because tech people are expensive and many companies laid a bunch of them off over last 2 years to save money including the people who research and implement backup plans. Backup plans are expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader that backup plans are important because they doesn't "make them money". Wait a minute. How many of these critical systems in tech, transportation, government, and infrastructure are short staffed right now? Pretty much all of them. Good luck. Wait a minute, all of these people who laid off all the tech workers said they were replaced by AI. What happened? AI was just a bullshit justification to lay off expensive tech people. AI hasn't really replaced many people in tech because making major changes like shifting to AI is expensive and it's hard to convince a business leader to spend money on making changes when they can just fake it because their compensation is affected more by how many tech people they can lay off than how well the companies actually function. Someday, AI might replace a lot of people in tech, but right now most of the jobs were not replaced by AI and were likely just closed or sent overseas.
  https://files.mastodon.online/media_attachments/files/112/824/576/731/649/781/original/46f0846a2111359a.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice