I think the power consumption of your property and its thermal signature would be dead giveaways?

They are not. The thermal signature show you are using power. You can be running ASICs in order to train LLMs. Or you could be switching the ASICs over in your spare time to start cryptomining. And the thermal signatures don't indicate your own activity. The point is those are your own private and activities, and while they should be interested you are powering industrial-scale computing gear.. the actual Output you are getting from crunching the numbers should be irrelevent and not be a legitimate matter for government inquiry.

That would be akin to trying to permit an Industrial facility to manufacture plastic kids toys but not plastic adult toys. I.E. Massive government overreach.

On the other hand; It is understandable if the power infrrastructure cannot handle industry, and therefore All new private industrial facilities will be prohibited; based on how they are operating, and not what the data they produce is going to be used for.

What was actually damaged/destroyed

The damage was Additional revenue-generating opportunities normally enabled by AWS were lost.

For example: If because of an outage your Ecommerce website is down for an hour -- there is a certain volume of sales: Revenue opportunity: which you lose.
You calculate that loss by using past data to estimate your expected revenue during the particular hours of the day times the number of hours that you were down leading to an estimated number and dollar sales volume lost.

Given that the outage was claimed to be in Eastern US, why did I suffer multiple service outages in Idaho?

Clearly bc you used services that dependent on the affected network.

US-EAST-1 outages also have a way of cascading to the other sites, because it's the most populated region with the largest amoutn of resources.
When East-1 has issues.. the other regions will receive a huge volume of additional load. They had EC2 launch issues, and throttled ---- slowed down new launches deliberately; likely because every other customer in the US-East-1 region attempting to deploy instances into other regions due to the outage impacting their east-1 resources. This surge in activity in other regions caused by customers attempting to shift traffic around to get past East-1 outage has a chance of causing major network degradation across all regions.

the correct accusation is: "you shouldn't outsource your critical business infrastructure to a huge megacorp that can survive without you."

Perhaps you should not, but most businesses DID NOT and Will not build a resilient in-house infrastructure that provides nearly the average uptime as AWS.

For example.. 99% of companies' -- even large corporations' internal Email the whole company relies on would typically be on a single MS Exchange 2016 server. You would have a hard drive crash, and the server would be down for days while the backup restores.

Before you start complaining that companies shouldn't outsource critical business Infrastructure... I think you should take a study on what exactly that infrastructure looks like Not outsourced.

The in-house schlop is in general more susceptible to outages, but of course it has the advantrage that your outage will typically not happen at the exact same time as a thousand other corporations' outages.

The thing is it cost billions In revenue Amazon created opportunity to earn in the first place

It is not as if AWS centralization is this critical threat that caused billions in damage. They caused many billions in revenue generation which was slightly reduced during a short outage -- which is extremely minor compared to the value AWS provides. I mean a 24-hour outage is not even a concern.. come back when they have a real catastrophe and it's a major 7-day outage. Even that, quite honestly, may not be enough for projects to justify picking a different provider in the long term, however.

Third parties don't belong in the kernel even on Linux. There IS an alternative.

That is up to you as the administrator to reject vendors who don't use the alternative and want to send you a custom kernel driver instead.

However... It's still possible for Crowdstrike to do something stupid that brings a system to its needs.

The software is able to block a file from being opened or read, for example. Now what happens if Crowdstrike suddenly detects _EVERY_ file as malicious and starts preventing the system reading any files at all? For example.. the Browser.. the Windows manager.. the Launcher, Desktop, etc.. Any programs that have to run in order for the user to successfully log in and use their system.

With proper auditing, you can use NPM just fine, pin a specific version

So Insecure by default then.

What we really need is to have catered repos which default to a pinned version, instead of requiring the user to pin one. And the version pin does not update until that version has been audited by a sufficient number of trusted authorities.

If no version has been audited and pinned, then new packages should simply be unavailable to anyone who is not running in a "dangerous insecure mode"

I mean that some system of package review is obviously necessary for all updates, and that which has not been reviewed should not be available. Otherwise it's worse than geocities -- a convenient malware distribution channel.

There's a difference between a "hazardous protein" and a "protein that doesn't cause damage until three generations into the future."

Eh? What about a protein that 3 generations into the future causes Production of a related protein that obliterates all life on the planet.
I would say these 3rd generation cases Cannot be safely ignored.

Given the program that takes inputs vector x named P(x); write a function f(x) such that f(P) is true if and only if P halts for all possible inputs.

The only difference is we're asked.. given a protein that interactions with molecules vector x named -- P(x). Write a function such that f(P) returns true if and only if P for all possible inpuit vectors is not capable of causing a catastrophic failure or serious impediment upon a complex biological process resulting in the Injury to, Or loss of any basic senses or intelligent capacity, or the end of the life to a human organism.

Perhaps you should put your Proteins in a simulator of some kind and require the simulations run through without simulated biologies or ecosystems dying before allowing the designed proteins as a design.

You'd think, if someone is managing a group of detectives, they would be regularly discussing progress on their cases

I would say not. They should stop trying to micromanage detectives and their work flows, as that is only to frustrate them.
Detectives are senior mental workers much like writers, or designers in certain engineering, or art fields.

They are bound to spend a lot of time on the clock making no progress at all, And in addition spend a lot of time thinking while not on the clock, in the shower, etc, the subconcious organizes thoughts when conditions are right -- which can be attributable to 90% of the progress you ever can even get. Which kind of also means that having them log hours or monitoring their computer usage as some kind of proxy to amount of work done, is also complete bullshit. Especially for any detectives who may have to go out into the field and look at places to stimulate their intuitive senses sufficiently to come back and make progress. There are necessary activities for thought workers which can't be categorized as work by corporate standards, but which are necessary to the process. Including being lazy and procrastinating from time to time. The keyjamming is not necessarily a flaw - for all we know they may be a high-performing detective within a system that has ignorant executive management and stupid policies.

One does not Ping Sherlock holmes or Fox Mulder, every 4 hours for a status update on his thought process, or even every day for that matter. One does not harass the graphics designer every hour about when they are going to get past their art block on creating such and such, and forward movement, etc. You wait, and as professionals it is upon them to report once they are organized and ready to report.

The progress on cases is a glacial thing; even with hardworking detectives--you don't more regularly have progress to discuss, than perhaps a monthly or bi-weekly update on case files they've taken. If the day is spent reading reports and other necessary activities: most of the time they simply won't have anything to give you. It also does not make sense for a detective to write reports about reports. And as a mental discipline the detectives would need time to organize their thoughts. It's not a good idea to disrupt peoples' workflows and ask for them to make extra reports just to have a proof that they are working. Reports like that do not cause progress, and quite the opposite. More unnecessary work and a slowing down the process is the result of inserting additional problems for the detectives to solve.

Also; I don't believe controlling where the detectives work is a solution to this problem -- the whole keylogger thing or caring about where they work shows a misguided approach. Th detectives are presumably just as likely to spend time pretending to read reports while goofing off at a central office.

This should not necessarily be a huge deal either. Progress can be stalled on many cases for reasons that are outside detectives' controls.

Fresh leads may be lacking. Those forensic samples the labs are going take months to get back can be pivotal to the direction of the cases, etc. Detectives are going to be appraised eventually by whether or not they solve the cases, and how many they do manage to close. That is where the performance measurements exist, And it is the detectives' jobs to make certain they deliver. A detective's manager's jobs is not to micromanage detectives' case work,

Doesn't reading Slashdot articles count as reading?

In fact.. Not only are we reading here, but we are writing here as well. Guess we are amongst the dinosaurs in modern society... We're supposed to be glued to TikToks and Youtube shorts. Makes us more controllable by the government.

.Flying objects that can't detect stationary obstacles that size shouldn't be flying.

Human-piloted aircraft cannot reliably detect them either. Unless the cranes have proper markings and lighting, they can be very difficult to see from the air and are a menace to all aviation, not just drones. On the other hand; Human-piloted aircraft would also not be flying that low other than during takeoff or landing. Formerly only structures more than 200' above ground had to be specially marked and lighted, but under new FAA regulations anything above 50 feet has to be marked, so there can be an argument that the cranes are to blame If they haven't been cleared.

This is not proven an issue with the drone until they finish the investigation. It may very well be the crane ended up lacking the proper beacons to identify the hazard to aviation.

I don't care if that's illegal. Prove I was the shooter.
Firing at aircraft is a felony. You'll be wearing orange within a week, And you will very quickly lose the right to possess a shotgun or any firearm ever again.

The drones have live video feeds, and any crash would be investigated thoroughly by the authorities who will very quickly find the evidence that the thing has been shot at and by whom.