> But using reasonable models or competent risk management and acting on the results would have prevented it.

This. The risk is well understood and usually well managed. This is pure incompetence of the Spanish grid operator.

The report tried very hard to spin it otherwise, calling it "unprecedented". Yes, it is unprecedented, because nobody else was that stupid.

It might be relative to where they came from.

I always thought it was weird that Chromebooks have more capable hardware than mobile phones, but much less capable software. They only had the browser, and Chrome Apps, while Android has a lot more capabilities.

Chrome Apps are already sunset, so it is very clear that Android is coming to Chromebooks. And yes, it will be nice, but still short of what the hardware is capable of.

So, we will shut them down, right? Like any criminal organisation?

Yep. And you can sum that up in three points:

1. Immigration (and migration in general)
2. Democrats trying to be everything to everybody.
3. Voters acting in bad faith

This is where we are. What is not clear is how we get to some place productive. 1 is an impossible dilemma. 2 could be solved, but it is hard, and it will lose some votes. 3 is the big obstacle.

> I may have some (limited) compassion for people doing that, but that completely vanished when they start to call for violence against others, regard others as inferior and dehumanize them.

This. I was very concerned that politicians are acting in bad faith, until I realised that voters are also acting in bad faith.

We have a representative democracy, and these things do not happen with support from the bottom.

Exactly.

Half the reason for user based security is to protect users from each other. That is the reason we have accounts in the first place.

So attacks from your own user base should always be on the radar.

The same applies across Europe, the regulations are grounded in EU and very similar across countries.

The outrage in the article is synthetic. I call to make something illegal that is already illegal. (Electric motorcycles that have no type approval, no insurance, and no business in public.)

> I see e-bikes from across the pond that absolutely I think should be outright fucking banned. Able to drive 40+km/h, able to do so without pedal assist (not an e-bike despite being sold as one, actually a moped), excessively heavy, shit breaks, and lights that are worse than a car with high-beams. This shit should be regulated, and I say that as an e-bike owner.

These illegal electric motorcycles are common, but illegal on the road.

There is no regulation necessary, because motor vehicle are illegal on the road unless regulated.

The article is shit.

It confuses pedelecs, which are tightly regulated and limited to 15mph, with illegal electric motorcycles.

While pedelecs have some risk for injury, it is really not much different from a bicycle.

Illegal electric motorcycles, on the other hand, are more dangerous than motorcycles. Which should not be surprising.

Obviously, banning pedelecs is not going to solve the problem of illegal electric motorcycles.

> Car manufacturers are terrible at IT.

Absolutely,

Recently, the EU has increased regulation, and they now require a basic IT security concept for every vehicle sold. Not a certification, not a specific approach, just a basic definition.

And did the manufacturers do? Withdraw a whole bunch of models from sale. Because they did not even have a basic IT security concept, and they did not think they could create one.

So yes, IT security in automotive is certainly an issue.

> He's claiming that they acted unwisely in making their core business dependent on one particular (any particular) supplier.

Yes, but which company doesn't? Is there any big company that does not rely on Microsoft products at least to some degree? Nividua GPGPU? Apple products?

Sure, they should have started looking into alternatives when Broadcom bought VMWare, because the writing is on the wall. But on the other hand, they do have a contract that was promised to go up to 2030, and Broadcom is just not caring.

As somebody said, basically all big companies do illegal stuff, or they would not be this big. (And that includes Tesco...)

And, if the US is not allowed, to the five eyes. So the UK snoops on US citizens, and then forwards the data to Trump...

Hypocrisy does not quite cover what they are doing.

> that says something to the effect of "You'll be getting a mail over the next few days from SurveyPartner. The e-mail originates from @domain.com and it has a link to https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsurveybox.something%2Fou... [surveybox.something] something".

Inevitably followed by "please check your spam filter".

How about tell IT to get the spam filter properly set up? Whitelists exist for a reason, and they are much less work than 3000 employees checking the spam folder.

No, I will stick with "incompetence is rife on all levels, and it would be wrong to blame the grunts".

> So, I called them and sure enough it turns out the bank actually did call me in an act which was almost indistinguishable from a phishing attempt.

This is the real problem. We fail to authentical important messages, and that is the root of the opportunity for fishing.

> Many people are willing to trust easily, with no verification.

Because they know their bosses are vindicative assholes. "Hey boss, you really shouldn't issue financial instructions over an insecure channel..." - yeah, that will go down well.

Phishing emails work because bosses would do stupid stuff like that, and would punish people for erring on the side of safety.

So yes, stupid is the problem, but it is not necessarily the underlings.