They autogenously pressurize the tanks - they heat up the cryogenic propellants with the engines and use some of the gas to pressurize the tanks. In Starship’s case it’s methane and oxygen.
Reputational damage from this is going to be catastrophic. Even if that’s the limit of their liability it’s hard not to see customers leaving en masse.
Ironically some /r/wallstreetbets poster put out an ill-informed “due diligence” post 11 hours ago concerning CrowdStrike being not worth $83 billion and placing puts on the stock.
Everybody took the piss out of them for the post. Now they are quite likely to become very rich.
Not sure what material in their post is ill-informed. Looks like what happened today is exactly what that poster warned of in one of their bullet points.
Yea, everyone is dunking on OP here. But they essentially said that crowdstrike's customers were all vulnerable to something like this. And we saw a similar thing play out only a few years ago with SolarWinds. It's not surprising that this happened. Ofc with making money the timing is the crucial part which is hard to predict.
Is the alternative "mass hacking"? I thought all this software did was check a box on some compliance list. And slow down everyone's work laptop by unnecessarily scanning the same files over and over again.
As someone said earlier in these comments the software is required if you want to operate with government entities. So until that requirement changes it is not going anywhere and continues to print money for the company.
But then, if what you say is true and their software is indeed mandatory in some context, they also have no incentive or motivation to care about the quality of their product, about it bringing actual value or even about it being reliable.
They may just misuse this unique position in the market and squeeze as much profit from it as possible.
The mere fact that there exists such a position in the market is, in my opinion, a problem because it creates an entity which has a guaranteed revenue stream while having no incentive to actually deliver material results.
If the government agencies insist on using this particular product then you're right. If it's a choice between many such products than there should be some competition between them.
From experiencing different AV products at various jobs, they all use kernel level code to do their thing, so any one of them can have this situation happen.
You, the admin, don't get to see what Falcon is doing before it does it.
Your security ppl. have a dashboard that might show them alerts from selected systems if they've configured it, but Crowdstrike central can send commands to agents without any approval whatsoever.
We had a general login/build host at my site that users began having terrible problems using. Configure/compile stuff was breaking all the time. We thought...corrupted source downloads, bad compiler version, faulty RAM...finally, we started running repeated test builds.
Guy from our security org then calls us. He says: "Crowdstrike thinks someone has gotten onto linux host <host>, and has been trying to setup exploits for it and other machines on the network; it's been killing off the suspicious processes but they keep coming back..."
We had to explain to our security that it was a machine where people were expected to be building software, and that perhaps they could explain this to CS.
"No problem; they'll put in an exception for that particular use. Just let us know if you might running anything else unusual that might trigger CS."
TL;DR-please submit a formal whitelist request for every single executable on your linux box so that our corporate-mandate spyware doesn't break everyone's workflow with no warning.
Extremely unlikely. This isn't the first blowup Crowdstrike has had; though it's the worst (IIRC), Crowdstrike is "too big to fail" with tons of enterprise customers who have insane switching costs, even after this nonsense.
Unfortunately for all of us, Crowdstrike will be around for awhile.
Businesses would be crazy to continue with Crowdstrike after this. It's going to cause billions in losses to a huge number of companies. If I was a risk assessment officer at a large company I'd be speed dialling every alternative right now.
A friend of mine who used to work for Crowdstrike tells me they're a hot mess internally and it's amazing they haven't had worse problems than this already.
That sounds like any other companies I have ever worked for: looks great from the outside but a hot mess on the inside.
I have never worked for a company where everything is smooth sailing.
What I noticed is that the smaller the company, the less hot mess they are but at the same time they're also struggling to pay the bill because they don't innovate fast.
> The primary take-away seems to be that, since 2015, Republican confidence in higher ed has dropped 36%, and Democrat confidence has dropped 12%.
It’s a little hard to tease out how much of this is due to the demographics of Republicans and Democrats changing. There’s been a significant shift in education level between the two parties recently, and this may have offset some of what would otherwise be broad based decreases.
The broader decrease in faith in higher education is still quite clear signal though.
That demographic theory seems a bit feeble. According to the polling back in 2015 there was a slight bias but splitting by politics painted the same picture in a with minor adjustments. Then there was a massive realignment where suddenly the right wing "lost confidence". It isn't obvious why less-educated individuals would have no confidence in education either. That is like saying less-physically-endowed people don't respect height or muscle mass! People can respect what they do not have if it is respectable, and they can have confidence in things they personally lack if they are things inspiring confidence.
Although what the word "confidence" means here is a baffler. It is beyond vague.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted... seems very well said. There's this disturbing attitude in right wing media that almost celebrates people deciding to turn away from higher ed. It's like they actually want people poor and stupid
The one thing you don't mention though are the effects of free trade policies and immigration on their economic conditions
I think the general pattern here is a sort of self-reenforcing attitude associated with poverty. It's hard for me to look at more extreme progressives trying to eliminate high ability classes and not see some of the same thing
Ha, some of my most thoughtful and most balanced posts where I've put both sides of an argument have been downvoted the most.
Sometimes—usually with controversial topics—I've sat on my post and watched the votes oscillating up and down so in the end I've ended up with none or near zero.
From my experience, almost inevitably, downvoters don't offer a counter viewpoint or argument. Whilst irrelevant when it comes to my posts, it is important when scaled up to real politics. Voting out of gut reaction isn't helpful.
It seems to me that as gut reaction can now be manipulated so easily in today's world that it's a substantial reason why democracies and the democratic process are in such a mess.
> Sometimes—usually with controversial topics—I've sat on my post and watched the votes oscillating up and down so in the end I've ended up with none or near zero.
Probably a form of upvoting that represents "I don't really agree with you, but I don't agree with the downvotes either". That means many comments will start attracting upvotes only when they are greyed out. It isn't so rare for reasonable but downvoted comments to bubble back up to exactly +1.
> From my experience, almost inevitably, downvoters don't offer a counter viewpoint or argument.
It'd be interesting to know how many people just don't use downvotes as a matter of course. The signal they send is wildly ambiguous. Although in this case I'd guess it was the ranty tone of the comment and the lack of charity, evidence or argument beyond assertions were the major factors.
"It'd be interesting to know how many people just don't use downvotes as a matter of course. The signal they send is wildly ambiguous."
Right. That's why I reckon HN should give the poster (and only the poster) the stats for both up and downvotes. As often, I'll not watch the voting but only get to see the final tally many days later and to find it sitting on zero or minus one. One's left not knowing whether one's view was middle-of-the-road and received lots of votes either way or if it was just one downvoter.
Also, I'd like to see HN publish anonymized stats on how people vote, it would be interesting to know how many downvoters subsequently comment or fail to do so. Same with upvoters but I'd reckon downvoter stats would be more informative.
BTW, see my reply to throwaway7ahgb, I posted it before reading your comment.
Edit: in the time I've taken to write this reply my post to which you replied has been downvoted from two votes to one. There's been no subsequent negative comment in the interim. Point proved perhaps? ;-)
IMHO you should be downvoted for comments such as "It's not because anyone in the Republican party actually cares about any of this". This dismisses 100M+ people and their beliefs.
Right, I was making a general point, sometimes it's difficult to summarize succinctly in a few words.
It's why I rarely downvote a comment despite errors or political views (from my stance I much prefer to argue the point giving my reasons). That said, some comments are just so wrong and or egregious that it's obvious additional comments won't help and if posted they'd only inflame things further.
I've learned this from experience, on more than one occasion I've seen HN delete a complete thread (full length of the chain to the top) after I made a very reasonable reply to a very egregious comment posted somewhere near its bottom. The poster then took ofence and still others came to my defense and matters cascaded to the point where it was deleted. If I'd ignored the comment or just downvoted it then it's likely the thread would have remained intact. Trouble was many other intelligent comments were deleted in the process.
It's almost impossible to make generalizations on HN. You'll say "X is typically Y" and someone will always come out of the woodwork to reply "Well here is a case where X is not Y. Your entire point is invalid. Gotcha!"
Yeah, right. I will make one generalization though. I've rarely ever had a problem on purely technical points, either I acknowledge I'm wrong or we agree we've been arguing at cross purposes and it's resolved. Even one 'sticky' discussion that involved the controversial sugar substitute aspartame and the correctness of the Wiki entry was largely resolved when we agreed we were arguing at cross purposes. (As you likely know discussions about aspartame can get very heated).
From my experience, the point you're making almost always arises from controversial topics or ones that are or can be construed as political. For example, I remember when HN deleted a thread on veganism. Discussion started out civilized but eventually went ary after an extremist made statements that no reasonable person would have considered correct. Backlash followed from multiple posters and HN ended what was no longer a discussion but a heated argument.
I'm not that person, but the Pew Research Center says that, in 1994, 57% of Democratic voters were white non-college graduates, while in 2019, it was 30%. For Republicans, 68% of their voters were white non-college graduates in 1994, and it was 57% in 2019. The Democrats seem to have been shedding this demographic much faster than Republicans have been.
They do say that there's a relatively recent shift in voters who went to college towards the Democratic party.
The Republican Party now holds a 6 percentage point advantage over the Democratic Party (51% to 45%) among voters who do not have a bachelor’s degree. Voters who do not have a four-year degree make up a 60% majority of all registered voters.
By comparison, the Democratic Party has a 13-point advantage (55% vs. 42%) among those with a bachelor’s degree or more formal education.
This pattern is relatively recent. In fact, until about two decades ago the Republican Party fared better among college graduates and worse among those without a college degree.
I don't know if it qualifies as a shift, significant or otherwise, because I don't know how it was before. But a quick internet search for "biden trump voters education level" brought forth a few reports by news sites and research outfits.
According to Ipsos and Reuters about a third of Trump voters have a college degree or better. Pew has an more detailed analysis of voters for the 2016. 2018, and 2020 elections here [1], including education, which seems to confirm this.
This is some serious cherry-picking. It's going private at a price below the initial IPO price of $48 from 3 years ago, and has generally significantly underperformed other tech stocks.
They might not be about to die, but they're not exactly healthy either.
Because it's an extended period, with a simple round time window that doesn't include the IPO pop from the frothiest IPO environment of the last decade. Happy to have gone with any time window outside of 2021. That should be clear from my comment.
"But, Creddit", the ignorant accuser of cherry-picking whine, "why after 2021?"
Square space IPOd in a borderline delusional environment of retail investing, stimulus money, and massive free cash flow. Pretty much every IPO from that era looks awful on paper, but the companies are fine balance sheet wise.
> Congestion pricing hits the lowest earning individual the highest.
This is true for anything that you buy. I’m not sure why being able to drive a car into the Manhattan CBD deserves special treatment. It also already has an excellent subway system that millions take daily.
This is absolutely a problem that interacts with scale. With 1M servers you’re almost certainly dealing with hundreds of service owners, and some of those are going to need additional features you don’t have to worry about with 100 servers. Some examples are databases with graceful failover, long running AI model training jobs, or distributed databases like etc where you have to be mindful about how many can be down at a time.
It’s not 10,000x harder to patch that 10,000x more machines, but it’s not 1x either. Easily 10-20x harder, if not more.
Apollo missions were done at incredible expense, and didn’t provide any longevity.
We’ve had humans in orbit on the ISS continuously for decades, sent probes to the edge of the solar system, landed multiple robots on Mars, and revolutionized our understanding of space and physics with space telescopes.
The biggest obstacle to space exploration was a contracting that didn’t bring down costs, and the thing that makes space so exciting now is high cadence low cost launches
If a state or local government wants to forbid tipping it doesn’t have to be this complicated. Pass a law that says it’s forbidden, that credit card merchants and POS merchants must disable tipping functionality, and for cash tips up a hotline & fees for merchants that solicit them.
Tipping is only a thing because we’ve normalized it. If you pass a law against it, it’s no longer normal, and customers will mostly stop giving them, even without highly intrusive enforcement mechanisms.
The real challenge is getting a government to want to forbid it, because people who receive tips care about them a lot while those that don’t, don’t. Until you solve that nothing else matters. Maybe tipping will go so far that the balance shifts.
