To try to remove the word motherly there, your comment could be written as:

Most men are worse parents than most women.

Do you think that is a good representation of what you are saying? Do you think it's true? Are men inherently worse at parenting, or is there something else at play?

And I would also like to know what your evidence is for that.

Because we're not mice. Because he was actually studying the effects of overcrowding and not population growth & decline.

You'd need to look at more than just the population numbers, the issues were around high infant mortality and bad parenting, those are the things you should look out for over low birth rates.

I thought thees things were complex on purpose to make it hard for people to easily understand and compare so you have to speak to a sales person who can do the upselling

Nope. I built a calculator for that last year and ooooh boy. Now I pipe half the requests to a human because of all the possible mistakes a person can make. It's crazy complicated.

Finding that human is also hard because of the perverse incentives to sell more lucrative products.

That's my point, you need to be a specialist to understand it, but the specialists are incentivised to upsell you.

A simpler product would be better for consumers, but won't happen because there are industries (and a lot of lobbying) built up around keeping the money train rolling.

Not really. Some things are just complex.

What's the security risk of someone streaming Netflix?

There are better ways to ensure people are getting their work done that don't involve spying on them in the name of "security".

Security takes many forms, including Availability.

Having branch offices with 100 Mbps (or less!) Internet connections is still common. I’ve worked tickets where the root cause of network problems such as dropped calls ended up being due to bandwidth constraints. Get enough users streaming Spotify and Netflix and it can get in the way of legitimate business needs.

Sure, there’s shaping/qos rules and dns blocking. But the point is that some networks are no place for personal consumption. If an employer wants to use a MITM box to enforce that, so be it.

I think that's a very loose interpretation of Availability in the CIA triad.

This looks a lot like using the MITM hammer to crack every nut.

If this is an actual concern, why not deny personal devices access to the network? Why not restrict the applications that can run on company devices? Or provide a separate connection for personal devices/browsing/streaming?

Why not treat them like people and actually talk to them about the potential impacts. Give people personal responsibility for what they do at work.

Yes, but also it’s not an employer’s job to provide entertainment during work hours on a factory floor where there are machines that can kill you if you’re not careful.

There’s a famous fable where everyone is questioning the theft victim about what they should’ve done and the victim says “doesn’t the thief deserve some words about not stealing?”

Similarly, it’s a corporate network designed and controlled for work purposes. Connecting your personal devices or doing personal work on work devices is already not allowed per policy, but people still do it, so I don’t blame network admins for blocking such connections.

I agree with all you said, but it's not like it is well advertised by the companies--they should come right out and say "we MITM TLS" but they don't. It's all behind the scenes smoke and mirrors.

I agree, that’s a bad business practice.

Normally no personal device have the firewall root certs installed, so they just experience network issues from time to time, and dns queries and client hello packets are used for understanding network traffic.

However, with recent privacy focused enhancements, which I love by the way because it protects us from ISP and other, we (as in everybody) need a way to monitor and allow only certain connections in the work network. How? I don’t know, it’s an open question.

It’s not at all a loose interpretation.

Availability: Ensures that information and systems are accessible and operational when needed by authorized users

I would still say that is loose — are connection issues caused by staff using streaming services generally considered to be DoS?

And on balance I'd say losing Integrity is a bad trade off to make here.

Yes, it's a spirit vs. letter argument isn't it? Or _Open Source_ and _open source_.

There's always a scenario where this can break though. What happens if someone introduces a test that confirms that marking `active1` as inactive works. Then it depends on the test order whether your initial test still passes.

It's required for tests to clean up after themselves. With Rails and fixtures this is handled by default: each test runs inside a transaction which is rolled back at the end of the test. That way each test starts with the same initial state.

I always saw it as an unmarked plural (like sheep/fish/etc). I also find it hard to not prefix it with Sony in my head. But I would definitely use Walkmen over Walkmans if pushed.

That's a service manual, any reasonable manufacturer still produces those

they have become harder and harder to obtain through the years.

I would argue they've become easier to obtain, it's hard to imagine the general public getting hold of service manuals for consumer electronics devices pre–internet.

> A system that costs less, per word thought or written, than it'd cost to hire the cheapest human labor on the face of the planet.

Is it really possible to make this claim given the vast sums of money that have gone in to AI/LLM training?

I'd say yes, because AI training is mostly fixed-cost and not that expensive when you compare it to raising/educating human labor.

Early factories were expensive, too (compared to the price of a horse), but that was never a show-stopper.

it's coming from an extremely biased source, that's why nobody else would make that claim