If they could make them as cheaply as in Taiwan, they'd have been doing so all along, and saving the shipping costs.
You can't accuse them of acting from greed while simultaneously accusing them of acting against greed.
Higher wages, higher taxes, higher insurance costs, there are many possibilities, and most likely, all apply.
Particularly regarding decades old industry standard practices that are industry standard practices because of this kind of criminal activity.
This isn't about who is at fault.
/me rereads TFS. Um, yeah right! "Clorox sues it's service desk"
Which is what you do when one party to a contract doesn't live up to their obligations under said contract. That is, literally, the entire point. Contractual obligations.
... It's about contractual obligations, and reasonable expectations to follow standard practices.
That's how the lawsuit is doing its thing, but the end users that were impacted don't need to care about that part.
Clorox isn't suing the end users, they're suing the company they had a contract with that (according to the suit) they did not live up to.
They are doing business with Clorox, and how Clorox (mis)handled their data is the problem.
And they can sue Clorox if the choose to. But Clorox is suing the IT company that (according to the suit) didn't live up to their contractual obligations.
As the previous posted noted, Clorox could have been verifying that said procedures were being followed (that's due diligence).
And Cognizant could have followed well established standard industry practices, but apparently, in your excuse for a mind, they are 100% completely blameless for not doing so.
If your bank account were compromised because some scammer called the bank on the phone pretending to be you, and your bank made no effort to verify the caller, would that be your fault for having the account with them in the first place? Or would you squeal like a stuck pig over the loss from their irresponsible practices?
You overlooked one of the parties involved. Was that on purpose? The above sounds like exactly what happened to their end users except that, when the scammer called the bank, they bank sent that call to a contractor they employed, rather than a direct employee. How is that any different for the end user?
I'll try to use small words this time: Clorox isn't suing the end users. If any end users are suing them, that is not part of this lawsuit. Cognizant had a contract that very likely specifically required them to follow industry standard procedures (and even if it didn't, that's implied in pretty much all contracts that don't say otherwise), and (according to the suit) they didn't.
And not verifying identity on a password (and two MFA systems) reset is something so fundamental that it really should be criminally prosecuted as an accomplice to the crime.
But they are, according to you, literally saints, completely blameless for their negligence, and should be literally worshipped for their piety. Or maybe they're paying you to spread bullshit that makes them look less negligent. Could go either way.
This isn't about who is at fault. It's about contractual obligations,
It can be both.
And one can be about 10,000 times more at fault than the other. (Note that juries assign percentage of blame to various parties pretty much always. I predict the percentage assigned to Cognizant in this case will be close to 100%.)
would that be your fault for having the account with them in the first place?
I don't agree with it, but the answer is yes. You are the victim of identity theft and the bank is not the victim of anything.
If the bank participated in the identity theft, they are not the victim, they are the perpetrator. You do know the difference, don't you? Don't you?
This isn't about who is at fault. It's about contractual obligations, and reasonable expectations to follow standard practices.
Clorox may well have been foolish, though there are millions of companies that outsource their IT. But Cognizant was (according to the suit) in violations of their contractual obligation to follow standard industry practices.
If your bank account were compromised because some scammer called the bank on the phone pretending to be you, and your bank made no effort to verify the caller, would that be your fault for having the account with them in the first place? Or would you squeal like a stuck pig over the loss from their irresponsible practices?
Tungsten cubes, that's what can go wrong.
I think we have moved from AI's hallucinating to AI founders hallucinating.
You have your timeline reversed. AI founds were hallucinating before they founded their companies.
I shop at Ace hardware over the big box stores because they have staff that answers questions.
That's what we do, and we're very successful at it. Every time the Orange Suck up the street runs a TV ad, we see a bump in sales as a direct result.
Depends on what state you're in. Some are one party consent, some are two, and in all cases, only in a place where there's an expectation of privacy. (And generally speaking, if there's more than two people present, there's no expectation of privacy.)
In someone else's private space, like their home, they can impose rules that say "no recording," but violating them would be a civil matter (and depend on the resident even being aware).
I'm wondering if there's some kind of ultrasonic tone that would screw this up, the way infrared LEDs can screw up cameras.
Again implies that, at some point, they stopped.
Who is going to get rich doing this?
That is the only question that needs to be asked when California politics is involved.
It will make it easier for grifters to manipulate the market for their own personal gain. Like "deregulation" did years ago.
AIs are easily confused. In fact, it's their natural state.
Dolly the sheep was 1996. I feel like maybe there's been some progress in the last 30 years.
(But I do believe you're right, for now.)
Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer
