Of course you design your policies and procedures to protect against rogue employees, particularly in IT and especially with admins who have greater levels of access.

Suggesting otherwise exposes your own ignorance as to how IT security operates in companies ( or how it's supposed to ). Everywhere I've worked, suspended employees were treated as terminated as far as their access to resources were concerned ( up to and including email ). Most places would ask you to tell them if you were traveling out of country, and would suspend your credentials as a precaution if you were ( predominantly in IT and finance, oftentimes HR as well ).

It's a question of minimizing risk. Admins have enough access to shutdown operations for extended periods of time, so of course you would disable their access when the situation warrants it. You wouldn't trust them not to interfere with millions of dollars of productivity/day, and as an admin I wouldn't want them to.

But hey! I'm not sure why I'm wasting so much time trying to educate you on this; the less you know and the more you spread your "knowledge", the more work I get.

That is how companies see suspensions, at least competent ones. And here, with this story, we see WHY.

But by all means, continue to believe otherwise in the face of contrary evidence. My contracting rates are very reasonable ( considering the alternative of course ), so it's in my best interest that more companies think as you do instead of following my advice.

Suspension means the employee isn't performing their job duties; hence they don't need access to the system. Same thing applies, admittedly to a lesser extent, to when admins go on vacations.

On top of that, suspensions are not done with the assumption that the employee is coming back; it's more of a "get the person out of here NOW while we build our termination case" type of thing. Suspensions are almost always for ethical reasons, which is precisely the type of person who shouldn't have access, and therefore usually lead to terminations.

As we can see here, disabling his credentials was clearly called for, so between yours and my perspectives, which would you say is more correct?

...doesn't negate the question; why wasn't his account disabled? A suspended employee has no reason to access secure systems, this should be the default.

I'm having a hard time imaging a reason for suspension that wouldn't necessitate the need to disable his credentials.

Dunno about you, but I'm perfectly happy waiting for any movie to be released to streaming before watching it. Hell, most are trash anyway, but even the few I'm interested in seeing I can wait on.

Of course, we aren't talking about what *kinda* of streaming is the best.

Patrick was not happy with the veto.

Abbott has called a special session for the purpose of writing a new bill. I suspect that Patrick will get a very slightly looser version of SB3 passed, which may itself get vetoed.

The number of times that my wife has had to submit a copy of her marriage certificate to confirm her original name even though we've been married for 11 years baffles me. It made some sense in the first year or two, but she still has to do it a couple of times a year for seemingly random things. I encouraged her to keep her original name when we were planning the wedding, but she insisted on the name change.

Thank you, that makes sense.

I get the idea. I worked a larger corporate environment over a decade ago, left it for the smaller environments ( better working conditions ).

Was interested to see what's changed.

How does something like proxmox compare to vmware in the larger space? What functionality is missing that is critical for larger businesses?

Genuinely curious.

He vetoed the bill.

https://www.texastribune.org/2...

He doesn't care. It wouldn't be going to his supporters for the most part, and some of the more vocal ones will criticize him for it.

No? I'd argue that Qanon and the anti-vax movement are a direct result of your curated "news".

They undermined their own integrity, so people went looking elsewhere.

Do you remember the CNN reporting standing in front of burning buildings and calling it "mostly peaceful protests"? You could then turn to social media and get real data from real reporters about what was actually happening. You don't think that kind of behavior doesn't lead to things like qanon?

Considering that they already announced a month ago that there would not be a Season 3, that's not a difficult call.

We are literally seeing real life examples of what I'm talking about.

But go on, keep believing traditional media sources. You do you, boo, and continue to be surprised when the consistenycy theorists keep getting things right. Never examine how you continued to get things so wrong, just keep blindly following your dogma.