ITeeTechMonkey

I use DBeaver at work when I am having problems with psql commands in terminal. It's prevented me from pulling out my hair a few times.

Unfortunately they are already in the market and making a mess: https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/21/crowdstrike_linux_crashes_restoration_tools/

I'm not remotely shocked Amazon is pushing this asinine policy given that Bezos unabashedly believes workers are lazy.

I know that Bezos is no longer the CEO, but he's cultivated a company culture that reflects these beliefs and this policy push is more evidence management has bought into the nonsense.

Specifically MVNOs would be stupid to do this since they are leasing from primary network operators (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) and have to play be the rules of the contract with those companies.

Plus in OPs case Visible is owned by Verizon and Xfinity runs on Verizons network. It's not Xfinity's interest to piss off Verizon who could kick them off their network. That would result in less negotiating power with other networks and result in higher costs for them.

I didn't realize one of the organizers was bargain bin Stanley Tucci.

I hate to say it but company data is most definitely on personal computers.

This is why stuff like adaptive MFA and DLP are a thing. What most people don't know is if DLP is properly implemented the IT team/department have records of who, when, where, and what device were used to not just access/download data/files.

The problem is a lot of companies don't properly implement DLP because it's not a turn key solution. You need to properly classify your data first and that requires essentially a company wide audit with buy-in from all levels of management. After the classifications you can then implement restrictions and compensating controls.

Back in the day you could just block USB/network transfer, but if you have data accessible outside of a corporate network you then need to implement conditional access/adaptive MFA where only registered devices are permitted to access certain systems.

I never considered or thought about union assistance nor the possibility it would be prohibited. It would have been nice for the article to explain in more detail how the exemption works.

My initial question reading this was, do SAG-AFTRA actors working on movies have similar exemptions - a movie started over a year before a strike is called is exempted from said strike?

From the article is says these terms were inherited from legacy agreements prior to SAG and AFTRA merging so it may just be specific to video games.

What really caught my attention was at the end of the article it states union members can strike in solidarity and cannot be retaliated for doing so.

So a second question is raised, if the members are still allowed to strike in solidarity and in THEORY can't be punished for doing so how is GTA6 really exempt from the strike then IF they are using SAG-AFTRA members?

I think it would be better to state there is no GUARANTEE that actors working on GTA6 will strike due to previously negotiated contracts, but that wording makes them sound more like scabs whereas putting the emphasis on the contract exemption makes it sound like they are obligated to keep working.

That 6% attributed to "unknown" is the one true OS, the only one ordained by the Almighty... Temple OS!

Chief Justice Roberts yelling at Justice Thomas, "Thomas ya really fucked our reputation with all your blatant corruption."

"Ah fuck em, I think people are only jealous. They can't be corrupt and get away with it like I can.", Thomas quips

"You greasy old scumbag! You just gave me the best way we can get the other branches off our ass!" Roberts exclaims.