Applicable to business – Page 20 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

"This is impossible!"

‘tWas not long ago, when all that knew their way in Infosecland (when the land had not expanded and complexified beyond grasp of mere mortals and AI was not yet needed to have taken over) would point at the stupidity of any claim like “That can’t happen here because our security beats every threat till Kingdom come”.
And the claimants would have it, by sheer power play. When dinosaurs roamed, it was in your interest to move over when they’d want to pass.

Now, the dino’s are on the way out (well, the current stock of them; new ones in the wings), and this of course happens.
Where the complete ignorance of the dino’s is displayed by their response, as if something new happened.
Where we haven’t heard enough calls for claw-backs of even standard salaries for, give or take, a decade or two back due to willful and (should-have-)self-knowing incompetence, especially at C-level and up.
But then, justice is served cold, by history making a fool of the true culprits (the authoritarian dino’s) at best, or forgetting them in old Greeks’ second hell as deserved.

Can we be friends now; you being the entry-level kindergarten ‘students’ and the rest of the world you scoffed, as your nannies …? For that:

[At least they acted as proper Night Watchmen; at the Rijks, Amsterdam]

New! (RE yesterday's post)

Oh how appropriately timed, this…: A new version of l0phtcrack is here ..!

As I mentioned in the passing in yesterday’s post, defense-wise one would be hard-pressed to find anything that’s up to snuff qua being a step ahead of the Other Side, catching up is however still (if only just) feasible. Good to see that the tools once (we talk, like, ages ago, ages being circa 20) used offensively and having disappeared from view, return in all their sophisticated glory — be it as point solutions in a much evolved world but still.

All rejoice and ‘play around only to get to know it’…!

Remember… you may turn out to be such a toll all the same … And:

[Once, sufficient and hard to handle, for defense. Now, a model just for show]

Weird infosec science

Who would have thought — that total surveillance would reach into the house, no / hardly any backdoors need to be built in even.
As explained here, and here in closer-to-humanly-readable form.

If such are the Tempest inroads, who needs the newest-of-highest-tech solutions as they all will all succumb to either trivial complexity-induced-unavoidable sloppiness of implementation, or to circumvention in the above way…?

Of course all of it is an atrocity in ethics but … I won’t be utterly negative about humanity’s future so I’ll stop now. With:

[Art imitating life; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

I can see your pulse

Just to drop a note; that Big G’s Glass is still around — but the same may, on a comparative after-launch timescale (sic), possibly not be said about Big A’s Watch.
Come to think of it… Watch isn’t what it’s made for; ‘flix on your wrist would be a hard view. More like Big B-rother watching your intimate (sic) health data…

— As an intermission, this (esp. 0:00-0:11 and 2:45—) deserves many more clicks —

But as said, some competitor is still larger in pulse-racked computing, at least (without having the energy to google for actual data) when it comes to visibility and leadership of the pack.
So, let’s wait and see what v2.0 Big G will come up with next. Maybe there’s a real serious and immediately obviously useful tool lurking just around the corner, just out of sight, not out of pulse. Not like, the iProducts that started as massively dumbed-down versions of stuff already around, with a Braun rip-off design.

Oh well, never take one’s point too far so I’ll stop already. Plus:

[Warped real life imitation, not usurpation]

Poor bungler has no Scandinavian example to make his point

Gerald jeered in dinner discussion
August 19, 2016 by Karen Mikkelsbergen

Gerald Waterson badly lost a series of discussions with his friends last Thursday. The 36yr (old) county clerk of Decatur, IL, didn’t have a Scandinavian example for any point he wanted to make.

During dinner, Gerald proposed e.g., that social security could not continue in its current form with the lax immigration policies, that a fully sustainable energy supply were feasible, that only college grads should be allowed to teach at high schools, that longer prison terms don’t increase general security and that tomato is a vegetable.

“Those were interesting proposals,” Dean Farmour (35) remembers. “We were honestly interested to have ourselves convinced. His arguments however were lacking every time again. Gerald only had a huge stack of scientific reports at hand and a slew of scientific theories. But he did not have one single example from Scandinavia. Not one!”

Megan Drimble (36) too, was disappointed by the defective argumentation of Geralds vision. “If you’re so sure that longer prison terms don’t work, then you’d better have something more than just fifty years of data from a number of countries. I’d like to have data from just one Finnish province, please!”

Megan herself successfully defended that the hunt for moose would need to be deregulated in Georgia: “Isn’t it crazy that the state legislature doesn’t just allow it? In Sweden, the moose hunt accounts for the prevention of many traffic casualties and of serious damage to forests.”

Gerald now knows what to do. “I always thought that I had studied sufficiently on any subject I thought to know but I was jeered at for that. Next time, I’ll make sure to always have some obscure Scandinavian research at hand. The Danish psychologist Sören Larsen showed, by the way, that to give me a far more convincing posture, too.”

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Golden Oldie Pic of the Day

Again, for ol’times sake:

Plusquote: Qua Quantification

Qua quantification, maximal isn’t the optimal that minimal is.

If quantification were good, or worth pursuing even anything more than a bit or minimally, Yoda would talk about hidden Markow chains not The Force.
Not all that can be counted, counts, and not all that counts, can be counted. Where ‘not all’ is to be read different than latter-day simpletonian, but as antediluvian ‘none’. Capice ..?

Many more arguments might go here. Suffice to say that ‘evidence-based’ science is a scam. Only those that are too stupid (let’s put it like it is) to ‘get’ the value of philosophy (and ethics etc.etc. as part of it), may not understand it. But as the vast masses don’t have a clue how their car works — chemical reactions within the pistons, anyone? how ’bout the programming of the cabling that controls it all? — but still use it, NO you not understanding does NOT mean it’s nonsense, in your case to the contrary.

To return to the positive of the Plusquote…: All may have a say in matters of society and the ‘control’ (quod non) of its infrastructure including all ‘critical’ sectors like energy, security and finance…

Oh that may be too much of a stretch but still…:

[OK, … quantify this … NO not even the qualifier Amsterdam is correct, it’s Dordrecht and even that doesn’t capture the picture…]

Own rules

When ‘Compliance’ are the Spanish Inquisition, keep them to their own rules. Leviticus, in particular; 19:19, 19:27, 24:10-16 and others (note :4 for the commoners outside the C department), and Deuteronomy, e.g., 22:11. Exodus 21:7, too.

We’re looking at a lot of pink slips, and clawbacks, if we’d be too (sic) lenient.

Oh well:

[Compliance through the looking glass; GlassFever Dordrecht]

Risk Chagrins

It’s just a matter of Karma…

As long as ‘risk’ ‘managers’ deal with negativity (admit it; focusing on the negative is even written into quite a number of definitions involved ..!), they’ll become the sourpusses they want to see all around (remember, the “passing back risk management to the ‘first’ line” ..?), and according to which they’ll behave ever more, finding evidence everywhere they’re on the ‘right’ track.
Quod non, but conspiracy theorists as they are, they will not listen …

Oh, and this:

[Your ‘risk’ ‘heat map’, accurate picture]

Plusquote: Materiality

Discussions about materiality are not material.

This, after realizing that all too often, the discussions about materiality were/are either by Eager Beavers (not having grown above box checking zealots), or by outsiders qua experience and expertise, e.g., lawyers (q.q.) and ‘governance’ bubbletypes.
Whereas, when ‘materiality’ (or its twin-at-a-right-angle, ‘significance’) its pass-or-fail boundary is discussed, not the precise measure (and hence, rigorous definition) counts, but the very fact that there is a discussion in the first place. That is material, that points at an issue. Wise minds (q.q. probably not directly involved ..!) understand this point and will not want to join the discussion, leaving the latter to the nonderstandables.

Think about it — when the discussion arises for whatever reason, that mere fact already is a signal, which can simply be reported as such, together with all its glorious detail. Must. For it is ~~material~~ ~~significant~~ oh whatever…

Leaving you for the weekend with:

[“It’s only a model” it aint ..! in Rotterdam — oh wait that’s a scaled re-build…]