Can you expand on this a bit? Shouldn't you be asking and then through study ,reading, exploration and testing answering your "ok but why" question? I could be misunderstanding what your stating but this would read as being "spoon fed" the answers not curiosity and problem solving, which in most cases is what a higher education is really teaching.
In comparison if you want just structured exercises with known answers, which in cases where you have been in an industry for a while maybe what you are looking for, thats boot camps and certificates.
I think the saying is "missing the forest for the trees.[1]"
Referring someone to another food bank or resource is not addressing or owning the immediate problem, which is what the experiment showed. Those organizations failed at their primary objective and instead of re-evaluating why they failed they hid behind process and procedure and how they were being tricked since it wasn't a "real" problem.
There was a proper way to handle this situation as anyone who has worked or called into customer service or tech support where their issue was addressed no matter what the internal structure of the organization was.
There is no RFC AFAIK, but it has certainly seen some adoption over the past decade. Mikrotik devices use `router.lan` as a default domain name for their routers, for instance. Home labbers on YouTube seem to like to use `.lan`, too.
Would it be fair to think there is a chance `.lan` might get an RFC of its' own given the popularity? Or that's completely irrelevant in case with RFCs? Hard to tell what's the reasoning there - `.home.arpa` seems excessivly long and inconvenient.
Would be a real shame and a bummer if `.lan` ends up becoming public :')
I agree it would be great to get some of the vendor pushed / common domains put into an accepted standard.
In my interaction with IETF standards they are created / implemented in two ways:
1. They set the forward direction for a new technology before it is wide spread.
2. They wait for a technology to become popular / accepted and start to set standards from that baseline.
Both are reasonable paths of implementation given how the pace of changes in technology.
I doubt .lan, .local, .home, etc will either become public or a standard just based on existing devices that default to these domains and documentation or books that might reference them as example domains.
Where? Should they drop them at a starbucks out front? Have an employee volunteer their home address? Put them out front at the office? How long should they hold onto the "free" cables that people are going to ask ridiculous questions such as "Do they work? When were they tested?" Are you going to force people to take all the cable or allow random selections? Are you going to waste the cost savings of moving to the cloud to have one of your tech people monitor requests for pickup? What if no one picks them up are you calling the recycler out again to pick up the cables you could have just given them?
Anyone who has posted "free" things online knows it comes a cost, thats the logic part I was referring too. When you work through the scenarios the "logical" conclusion is to give them to the recycler that you already have out at the datacenter for the systems you are decommissioning.
This is such an absurd argument. It's wild that you took the time to write this. But the next time you run into a problem like this, just ask a co-worker. I'm sure they can handle the logistics of giving something away for free.
This is common compliance nomenclature. The only people paying the high cost to have a full sized piece of equipment destroyed are governments or R&D companies with unique prototypes.
The hard drives are most likely being shredded since that is a common practice and certification feature offered by most disposal companies.
The servers are being "destroyed" because thats how they will be accounted for in inventory and tax purposes to account for full depreciation. The company isn't "selling" the servers to the disposal company so they are marked as "destroyed."
Unless specified in the contract the disposal company will sell the chassis without the drives to a reseller or if they are being paid to dispose of the system, they will separate the components and recycle the metal.
The same goes for the power and network cables, they will go off to a recycler, its how disposal companies off-set their pricing.
Remember 10 years ago at big company, the external audit company required picture evidence that the electronic equipment was being destroyed. We requested it to the disposal company, and they sent us pictures of a guy with a hammer smashing a motherboard
The whole situation so ridiculous and bureaucratic
This is correct. Once upon a time, I worked for a company doing this type of disposal. They had 18 wheelers full of equipment show up a couple of times per week. Drives were pulled and put in a pile to be shredded. Everything else was tested and either restored to working order and sold in bulk to organizations in need of cheaper computers, parted out on eBay, or scrapped.
Everything else was tested and either restored to working order and sold in bulk to organizations in need of cheaper computers, parted out on eBay, or scrapped.
Happy to say that my company shreds its old hard drives, then puts new ones in the old laptops and desktops and spruces them up for reuse.
We team up with a local organization to give them to poor children and families each Christmas. IT always sends around a bunch of photos afterward of kids who don't always know where they'll sleep from night to night clinging to a used computer like it's a life ring and they're in the middle of the ocean. I've been told that for some of them, it's the only present they'll receive the entire year.
We don't qualify for a tax break or any other renumeration for this. We do it because it's a nice thing to do.
(I have no idea what happens to servers. Not my department.)
I found that the book "Writing to Learn" by William Zinsser was excellent in convening this process. As noted in the book the author advocated for more writing to be included in all subjects.
Reading, writing and math have been the constants utilized throughout life and as such have been core subjects carried through educational systems. I'm not quite sure what subjects and topics we would be teaching future generations that didn't include reading, writing, math and science. At the very least writing should be included in more subjects. The hidden feature of including writing in all subjects, as you might have seen in your history endeavor's, is improvements in critical thinking, formulating cohesive arguments and a clearer understanding of topics.
There are greater difficulties that people will have to do in their daily lives than being "forced" to learn how to read, write and do arithmetic. Maybe learning the lesson of overcoming smaller, difficult tasks will allow them to adapt to greater difficulties in the future.
To quote Seneca:
A gem can not be polished with friction, nor a man perfected without trials.
This quote mostly applies to people who don't want to spend the time learning existing tooling, making improvements and instead create a slightly different wheel but with different problems. It also applies to people trying to apply "google" solutions to a non-google company.
Kubernetes and all tooling in the cloud native computing foundation(CNCF) were created to have people adopt the cloud and build communities that then created jobs roles that facilitated hiring people to maintain cloud presences that then fund cloud providers.
This is the same playbook that Microsoft did at Universities. They would give the entire suite of tools in the MSDN library away then then in roughly (4) years collect when another seat needs to be purchased for a new hire that has only used Microsoft tools for the last (4) years.
> The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN.
I disagree. There are numerous times where I have browsed the comments on a HN post where people haven't read the article and are just responding to the comment thread. The workflow for this seems a bit different in that a person would have already read a paper and wanted to read through existing discussions or respond to discussion. With that, having the search front and center would follow as the next steps for a person who read a paper and wanted to "search" for discussions related to that paper in particular.
HN is more an aimless browsing which is a bit different than researching a specific area or topic.
I'm not sure I see this as a reality anytime soon.
> Those folks have a lock bc there’s a small group of who knows assembly and OSs across multiple systems very well and knows if from a security context.
There is two parts to this. The first is for some of these business in that arena I'm sure if they could speed up analysis to take on more client jobs requiring less labor they would have done so. Second is, what output are you going to provide that wouldn't need the very same people to decipher, validate, or explain "what" is going on?
As an example if you get hacked and you make a cyber insurance claim you are going to have to sufficiently explain to the insurance company what happened so they can try to get out of paying you and you won't be able to say "Xyz program says it found malware, just trust what it says." If people don't understand how the result was generated they could be implementing fixes that don't solve the problem because they are depending on the LLM/decision tree to tell them what the problem is. All these models can be gamed just like humans.
I'm not quite sure I agree that a better LLM is what has been keeping people from implementing pipeline logic to produce actionable correlation security alerts. Maybe it does improve but my assumption is much like we still have software developers any automation will just create a new field of support or inquiry that will need people to parse.
In comparison if you want just structured exercises with known answers, which in cases where you have been in an industry for a while maybe what you are looking for, thats boot camps and certificates.
reply