redfox

I'm surprised he's appointing high paying jobs to new positions during hiring freeze and revoking remote work to cull employees and reduce head count...

Article covers Braun's intentions to reduce state employees by revoking remote work - my opinion.

Anyone have really good support for removing remote or hybrid work?

All I hear is rhetoric about productivity in person and collaboration, but too many studies say that's unnecessary.

Is this a veiled attempt to reduce headcount or is there actual legitimacy to removing remote work?

Could anyone explain this in a way that doesn't make me hate it?

The usual arguments I relate to are things like: we are taxed multiple times for vehicle ownership. Purchase, plates, mandatory insurance, gas tax, parking. Did I miss any?

Now I know there's plenty of people who would rather have robust public transportation, which would be nice, but I don't see that happening as a result of all this money I'm already paying.

People who make just enough or barely enough to afford to drive to work could now have to pay for the right to trade their precious time for money.

Insert tirade here about that.

I've heard view points regarding tolls:

recover costs to maintain interstate infrastructure used by commercial trucking to move the rolling warehouse of America around so Jeff Bitchboy can have a Venice wedding and I can have my materialistic lifestyle delivered to my door possibly the same day...sorry slipped into rant.

Should I be looking at this a different way before I exercise the almost non-existent power I have as a resident and voter, which is sending emails to my elected corrupt aristocrats and beg them to consider regular people, darn did it again.

My reading of the article shows a decision that the right of residents to sue the government for neglect actions was not specifically granted in this instance.

Public Service Announcement:

Have you checked out Sophos XG Firewall for home use lately?

It's basically an enterprise firewall fully licensed for personal use.

• All the firewall stuff
• Normal IPS
• Built-In easy transparent SSL/TLS proxy
• Web Application Firewall

I like it better than PF/Open Sense right now.

https://youtu.be/Ui8UC8-MeJU

Not sure why the original post was deleted, but I voiced anger at the hypocrisy of the article subject

I consider myself slightly in a conservative, Christian viewpoint camp. I say slightly because as I get past middle age, all those views or opinions have shifted.

I'm not a huge fan of abortion, but my opinion is slightly more nuanced and that's not a topic I think will be fruitfully discussed online.

Button line, seeing things like this however make me slightly lose my fucking mind.

Insert huge rant here about hypocrisy and unreasonable people, laced with outrage and much profanity.

I know others in my circle who also feel similarly. My hope is that people might know even church going conservative people think this is fucking bullshit and that piece of shit attorney general need to go. Fuck him.

After reading this article, I had a few dissenting thoughts, maybe someone will provide their perspective?

The article suggests not running critical workloads virtually based on a failure scenario of the hosting environment (such as ransomware on hypervisor).

That does allow using the 'all your eggs in one basket' phrase, so I agree that running at least one instance of a service physically could be justified, but threat actors will be trying to time execution of attacks against both if possible. Adding complexity works both ways here.

I don't really agree with the comments about not patching however. The premise that the physical workload or instance would be patched or updated more than the virtual one seems unrelated. A hesitance to patch systems is more about up time vs downtime vs breaking vs risk in my opinion.

Is your organization running critical workloads virtual like anything else, combination physical and virtual, or combination of all previous plus cloud solutions (off prem)?

The author of this article asserts some of the recent complaints I've either personally heard from others or some of my own opinions regarding the costs of higher education.

Scott Galloway has recently become well known for additional criticism of higher education creating artificial constraints on admissions or acceptance of potential students.

Do you believe any of these points have merit?

Do you believe the current costs of higher education either in the US or other first world countries provides appropriate return on investment?

Do you believe the assertion that senior lecturers don't have the same teaching skill requirements as primary education in addition to their subspecialty or focus?

How could higher education be improved or is the current model working well enough?

I've seen companies do all sorts of home grown things.

One uses a spreadsheet that is just the configuration row by row, they turn it I to text file and copy to startup, reload.

I have used git servers to do the same thing, but with obvious change tracking history of git.

What real or home grown things are you using?