Maybe stop hiring based on whether people use or used drugs?
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
315 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
57432 readers
3616 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In the tech world drug users, particularly of hallucinogens, probably make up the top 10%.
Obviously this is anecdotal, but of my friends in tech (early to late 20s) I'm the only one who has not used hallucinogens or psychedelics. I don't think a single one of their salaries (not TC) are under $150k.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah, honestly this shit is why I have avoided government jobs. I’m not really a drug user… just don’t like idea that I need to disclose the exact date and time of every time I ever did use one. Also, the pay sucks. So, the options are jump through hoops and have the government audit your personal life, or don’t and get paid more for that decision.
Republicans hate the government and government workers though, so they don’t even care that this policy costs the US Government talent.
How in the world is someone supposed to remember each and every time they smoked a bowl?? Shit I can barely remember what I had for lunch yesterday, and I don't really smoke much anymore.
Thats not something they ask. It's "have you used these drugs, in this time frame" Yes is a no go. But they do ask you to recount every job you have ever held, who your friends were each year and where you lived your whole life.
Even more so... Maybe stop requiring ridiculously formal attire?
I wouldn't go as far as moreso but yes!
I work in exactly this field and I can go to work in shorts and a tank top because it's about my expertise, not the material or its form I choose to wear. I had to go to work in a suit in a previous job and I'll never ever accept that again.
To an extent, I can understand not wanting to hire someone if they have an active substance dependency issue, especially for mission critical government work. But why are we still chastising people that had a bit too much fun in college?
I understand that the US is likely vulnerable to cyber attack, but is a widespread attack by China likely in the immediate future?
I mean, let's say China does disable infrastructure, banking, etc in a coordinated and widespread attack. But then what? An attack on that scale is an act of war, and I doubt China would be willing to follow up with military action at this time.
Perhaps this is more of a preventive MAD type strategy? Essentially a warning to the US to not mess with China, or else these are the consequences.
Given trade, it doesn't seem to be in their best interest to cripple the US.
Let us face squarely the paradox that the world which goes to war is a world, usually genuinely desiring peace. War is the outcome, not mainly of evil intentions, but on the whole of good intentions which miscarry or are frustrated. It is made not usually by evil men knowing themselves to be wrong, but is the outcome of policies pursued by good men usually passionately convinced that they are right.
—Norman Angell, author of The Great Illusion
I think a lot of American planners expect the next war to be against China more than Russia, most likely as part of efforts to reclaim Taiwan militarily. Whether that actually happens or not, China seems to be trying to build a military that can win against the U.S., either by matching strengths or some more asymmetric means. I think I saw a story recently that China was constructing mockups of American navy ships in a desert that seem to be for war gaming, as an example.
Had a long talk with a very intelligent, young, Navy SIGINT guy last New Years. He's been out there, intercepting and working on signal intelligence. Basically said, "China is the enemy, and they're far more able and serious than you think. Can't say much more, take it or leave it."
China is still mostly poor and rural. For all of their economic expansion things are still basic there for most people.
If 75% of China's population is poor and rural, that other 25% is still higher than USA's population, which also includes poor and rural people.
That's debatable, but that doesn't have much bearing on China's military capabilities. Their urban canters are very much developed. You could also say that much of the US is rural and poor, while our military has been involving themselves all over the world for a long time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Idk if Taiwan would be worth the war, at least not more than supplying Ukraine who's fighting Russia, which has done way more damage to our country recently. We need to catch up on our local chip manufacturing capabilities fast first, though.
Right after they had that Asia pacific summit in SF, suddenly there was very little news about threats to Taiwan, and there was a lot of news about new chip manufacturing setting up in like Arizona and Utah or something. Which makes me think we are going to let China take Taiwan.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, it's not likely at all unless we get into an open conflict. Then cyber warfare will be just one arena of conflict. But I think most estimates are that that would be disastrous for us, china and the world so it's unlikely for now.
It's way more likely that the fbi want more money or are repeating some talking point to push an agenda or as a political favor.
That being said, if America ever plunges into a civil war it would be the best time for them to cripple the US infrastructure and do anything they want to Taiwan and SEA while having the US consumed in an infighting.
Isnt it about being prepared for if they are in a state of war?
That's what it seems like to me. I don't see China executing a cyber attack without being willing and able to follow up with military action. Preparation, as you said.
Tensions don't seem high enough currently for that to be the case, but perhaps someday they will be. At that point we'd be facing an all out war.
Tensions can flair up any moment over anything, so while it might seem unlikely today all it takes is one Serbian guy with a gun to start a world war.
Whereas training hackers can take years, so start early.
I cant see China starting shit while Russia is failing so poorly and Irans limited in its capabilities. I assume the idea is to create regional instability for the next decade or two and try to push the US to its limits. Although Japan entered the war when it knew it wasnt ready, hoping on a hail mary strike to nullify Us capabilities, so don’t discount prideful stupidity speeding that up.
I don't see China executing a cyber attack without being willing and able to follow up with military action. Preparation, as you said.
That ship sailed years ago. No one is even keeping up a polite "might be someone else" fiction anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
America always needs a boogeyman. Maybe having all infrastructure connected to the internet and letting security sloppy contractors open access isn't a good idea either.
Meanwhile US citizens go without healthcare.
This is it. This headline has been true since 2009.
Here we go again... Point the finger at other countries while spying massively on the entire world.
I mean, yeah, I get that the US isn’t blameless across the board—or at all—but you’re drawing lines between two disparate things. Yes, spying is bad. We are agreed. Yes, the US is in deep with it. But what does that have to do with vulnerable infrastructure?
That’s like saying, “how can you sit there and tell me not to burn your house down when you stalk your ex girlfriend?”
Like….both are wrong. But they’re just not 1:1
Every cyber security and software dev that got fired over the past year: fucking sick, where do we sign up.
Maybe requiring computer nerds to not smoke weed if they want to work for Uncle Sam isn't the best national security strategy.
The devil's lettuce?! In my Christian Minecraft server?
They recently reduced requirements for gov cyber security roles.
I'm oblivious but I'm going to guess it was the technical skills requirements
Maybe not being the same asshole that always cries that there aren't enough back doors in encryption if he is so worried about hackers.
I know a lot of people interested in infosec, but none of them want to be cops/feds.
Removing those draconic entry requirements would be a start.
...now give us billions please kthanks
What's the pop ratio us vs China? Ball park 400mil vs 1.4 bil?
That's like us is 30% just for an easy number.
So there's like 1 us people to 3 or 4 China people.
And somehow this sector is 1 to 50. That's wild.
Most people I know barely know how to use excel and they'd die before leaning xlookup. Let alone Kali or something to run some ops.
I know a little about this world. Uncle in the Navy communications side. They have programs for this stuff. Marines can pick their field or whatever and they have a program too. Seems like a pretty simple fix to make those orders pay better if they really need bodies.
Seems like some wild numbers to throw around. Like 50 to 1 feels a little China outnumber us type xenophobic.
“To quantify what we’re up against, the PRC has a bigger hacking program than that of every major nation combined,” the FBI director said.
“In fact, if you took every single one of the FBI cyber agents and intelligence analysts and focus them exclusively on the China threat, China’s hackers would still outnumber FBI cyber personnel by at least 50-to1.”
Manually attacking your adversary is so 1900s. Train a MASSIVE ai on every classified hacking methodology/procedure document in existence, give it the adversary's IP ?range, and press GO.
That would just cause chaos. Which might benefit the attacker but I think you’d be better off with smaller targeted strikes using the secret catalog of CIA/NSA hacking tools already available to them. Or I suppose why not do both.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe we should continue to be friends. 😉
view more: next ›